Friar's Head #10

[Joel_Stewart]

Its a wonderful hole.  I learned the other day that the sand dune on the right of the green is all man made replacing what was a driveway.

[Michael Murphy]

Gosh, "Shivas," you're right...  No real man would hide behind an Internet handle...

Be a man and go back to using your real name.

So what if 50% of the board knows it. 50% doesn't know it.

Stand by your opinions, not some infantile Esalen Institute alias.

[TEPaul]

Be careful Michael Murphy whose name you call anonymous--you just might get tossed out of the Treehouse on your head.

Did you know, for instance that Ran Morrissett is not really Ran Morrissett's real name? Of course you didn't. His real name is Aloysius A. Auchterloine VI. So stop giving our foremost golf legal mind, Shivas, from the great state of Illinois a hard time.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Aha! Two clues on the identity of Art Hills and Dales. #1. There's only one guy among us who uses the word 'alas', especially the incorrect phrase 'but alas'. #2. This same guy started the stymie thread referred to by Art Hills and Dales.

Come out, come out, where ever you are, Turboe!
Oh, hell, that's not your real name either, is it?

[Guest and Fan]

Mr. Doak seems a bit bitter about Friar's...is it because we're saying that it's a better course than Pac Dunes, or is it because we're talking about FH and all the talk for Pac has died down?

[corey miller]

I wonder how many people have actually played both Pac Dunes and FH.  Tom D. is making one comment on one hole on what I am sure he thinks is a wonderful course.  Whats the big deal?

One of the great things about C&C is that they seem to push the envelope in their designs incorporating different strategies and natural landforms into the course.  FH has 18 holes which can be talked about from a design standpoint, not many modern courses give you this oppurtunity.

For what it's worth #10 Friars Head is one of my least favorite holes on the course, but it is still one I would love to see done by some designers because at least they would be trying to do something "unique".

Friars Head in my mind is in awful strong company whereby if someone who had played a lot of golf said it is there "favorite course in the world". I would give them an understanding nod,no argument, no value judgements,it is that good.  and the fact that it was created in 2002 rather than 80 years ago makes it all the better.

[Robert_Walker]

The real feature of the mound is not visual, it is how the mound interacts with the wind. A roughness element like that will surely have an effect on shot trajectories that players will have difficulty figuring out.

[TEPaul]

Why get concerned if Tom Doak appears critical of #10? He's only saying he thinks the hole lacks strategy although he thinks it's cool looking.

Don't try to discourage Tom Doak's architectural opinions because even if you wholly disagree he's about the only one in the profession who doesn't seem to pull any punches on his analyses. Could this have anything to do with the fact he doesn't belong to the ASGCA and may have no interest in ever belonging? Frankly, I think that might be a fair bet. But we need his unfettered opinions on here.

But I was surprised by Doak's remarks about #10 being low or light on strategy. I've been thinking about that for the last 24 hours.

For well over a year now I've been thinking that although strategy in golf and architecture is extremely, extremely important is it actually essential to good golf holes in all cases? Personally, I don't think it is.

I think there can be other architectural applications that can essentially produce the same effect as strategic ramifications as we generally think of them on golf holes, at least as an alternative to the way Tom Doak may be thinking about strategy.

I suppose one should then think of what all strategy means and if the definition is somewhat limited then one needs to consider if there are other ways to produce some of the effects on golfers that that somewhat limited definiton of strategy might.

So what's a good definition of strategy? Geoff Shackelford gave one of the best modern versions of the definition in his original article called "What is Strategy?" He gave the subject a very comprehensive analysis but this summation by him could be used just fine;

"Options, risks, mental dilemmas, decisions, mystery solving, intelligence, bravery. That's what strategy is all about."

Does it appear that #10 fits in well with some of those definittions? Definitely. But certainly some of them much more than others. Certainly mental dilemmas, intelligence and particularly mystery solving would be high on this hole.

And Friar's is gutsy to use on this hole the ultimate mystery in golf--blindness or semi blindness--to create that mystery with the immense fronting mound. Max Behr in an article entitled "Blindness" simply said, "Blindness is the one type of hazard in golf which contains the element of mystery."

The original Scottish, Irish and English architects felt that blindness was a great architectural asset back in the 19th century, particularly semi-blindness athough clearly mostly they were talking about various strategies to put yourself in visible positons versus blind ones and obviously that meant par 4s and 5s and not 3s.

So it seems to me that #10 is a unique and highly interesting and challenging hole by relying on that immense mound and also green size almost exclusively. That right there should create a high degree of mental strategy, 'a call upon intelligence' to quote Behr, simply because to the mystery producing blindness or semi blindness of it.

Clearly Tom Doak is implying there might need to be more to the hole than just that. Perhaps he's right, perhaps he's wrong, only time and play will tell well.

But Tom is saying that, for instance, say the green had an interesting side to side ridge across the center of it that would make the hole far more meaningful strategically of actually coming up on the front of the green or the back depending if the pin was on the other side of the ridge.

Would something like that make the hole even better or would it appear to be too much going on with a hole that already had such an unusual feature (and maybe even controversial one in today's anti-blind world in architecture) such as that mound? Certainly an architectural feature like a meaningful center ridge that created more intensity on the position of the ball on the green would have the effect of bringing the mound into even more strategic consideration.

Lastly, strategies are fundamentally about presenting the golfer with choices, all tempered by various risk/reward factors, and basically bottom lined by various degrees of temptation.

But what about the interesting aspects of pyschological factors of even the relatively one dimensional strategy? Does that have a valued place in golf architecture if done well, if done with uniqueness or variety? Forget about multiple choices for a second, how much psychologic impact will that mound have even with a big semi-featureless (as Tom says) green behind it?

I say it definitely does have an impact and probably a large one and what a golfer chooses to do about it with both decison and execution maybe be very interesting. I wonder if Tom Doak agrees with that and if so how much?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In the context of # 10 at Friar's Head, could you tell me if the strategy involved is substantially different from the strategy in playing # 6 at NGLA or # 2 at GCGC ?  Actually, there may be a little more strategy involved at # 10.

I think that strategy is inherently limited on Par 3's when compared to Par 4's and Par 5's.  They are after all,
one shotters from a designated tee to a fixed and defended green with a variable pin location.

There's no need to defend # 10.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

#10 is most definitely defended. But how it is may be very interesting to find out in time. I say it's defended by a very large actual mound, by the blindness that mound creates on most of the green surface that can create mystery, dilemma, indecision and maybe even a good dose of discomfort and annoyance in golfers who are less than completely mentally prepared for it.

All good and interesting things in architecture to me. Some may not call this kind of thing strategy per se, but I would, and at the very least if not calling it that it can have the same effect as strategy or at least some very interesting effects on the golfer nonetheless.

In my opinion, strategy is very very important in golf architecture although it may not be essential in all cases of great golf architecture.

Of course par 3s tend to be somewhat more limited strategically than par 4s and par 5s. They just don't have the strategic benefit of two or three shots in progression before the putting--they only have the one and that one is generally quite static.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think you could almost call this an island green hole. There is no good place to put the ball but on the surface and if the pin is behind the mound you don't even have that as an aid.

At Hotchkiss we have a Leven hole with a similar ant hill mound in front. It was played as a par four and as a par three. We recently lost our par 4 tee to a sports complex but George Bahto helped to recreate the hole. Now, I'm not comparing it to the 10th at FH but the mound is similar and adds much to the play of the hole. Ours would be toothless without it although we do have some spines and a small mound running through the green.

[JSlonis]

I was actually wondering if that was really Tom Doak who wrote the earlier post or some imposter posing as Doak. After reading and re-reading it, the post just doesn't "ring" as authentic to me.

Just a thought...

[Tom Doak]

Jamie -- Yes that was actually me!

Sometimes I wonder why I bother, though.  This discussion was entirely one-sided, with most people gushing over a golf hole they have never seen, and I thought it was fair for someone who had seen it to play Devil's Advocate.

I liked Friars Head a lot, I thought the tenth was a neat hole, although I thought 7, 13, 15 and 16 were better holes.  But for everyone to talk about how "strategic" the hole is just didn't make sense to me, so I challenged that assumption in the hopes that some would elaborate.  Only Tom Paul and Pat Mucci have so far ...

Pat was right on my basic point that few par-3 holes are indeed strategic (the Redan and the Eden being notable exceptions).  But then he goes on to say the Friars Head hole is more strategic than #6 at National ... I can't see how.  At Friars Head if in doubt you are simply going to aim to the middle of an enormous green.  At #6 National if you're uncertain about hitting the right section of the green you have to weigh what would be the best place to miss ... and you're probably going to have a MUCH more interesting second shot if you do miss.

I'm not sure I concur with Tom's points either, although he did at least take my comments at face value, instead of labeling me as "bitter."  Yes, there is a large amount of uncertainty and adventure facing a blind hole for the first time, but it would fade quickly when my caddie told me the distance to the hole and the fact that the green is close to 200 feet deep.  However, on reflection, I think Bill was right not to put a contour through the green as Tom suggests -- it would make the hole more strategic, but you could never get a feel for a contour like that in a blind green.

I am really fortunate to count both Ben and Bill among my friends, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want me to lay down about my opinions of their work.  Anyway, if you were reading, I said I liked the hole, and I haven't suggested that I would do anything different there ... I just think this thread has endowed the hole with qualities it doesn't have.

In truth, particularly as it relates to par-3 holes, it is most often simply the raw setting of a hole that makes us like it or not.

[TEPaul]

I thought that was a good discussion of #10. Everyone and anyone, certainly KenB if he's reading this should firstly understand that whatever was said is in no way recommending any changes should be made to #10, in no way--this is only a discussion of the hole in the context of a general architectural principle such as strategy and what all it actually means on a hole like #10--particularly on a par 3 hole. And as Tom Doak said, this is only a discussion with a very limited appreciation how the hole does play as it is now since most have never played it or even seen it.

What I said about a side to side center ridge on the hole creating more green contour and perhaps more strategic intensity was only an example of what might constitute additional strategic intensity, only a single example of what Tom Doak might have meant by more strategy on the hole, nothing more (although Doak never said anything about a center side to side ridge). There could be numerous other examples of what might do that--whether such things would benefit the hole hypothetically or whether they would not.

But in the end it's only a hypothetical discussion, nothing more. But it's good to have hypothetical architectural discussions sometimes--it has to expand one's thinking for what might work somewhere in the future with various arrangements.

And anyway, one might say that interesting golf holes inherently foster discussion and differences of opinion, perhaps even real controversy because they inspire different things and feelings in different golfers.

On this point we should all remember C.B. Macdonald's remark about controversy and unanimity;

"Rest assured, however, when a controversy is hotly contested over several years as to whether this or that hazard is fair, it is the kind of hazard you want and it has real merit. When there is unanimous opinion that such and such a  hazard is perfect, one usually finds it commonplace. I know of no classic hole that does not have its decriers."

And lastly, again, do not criticize Tom Doak and call him bitter about something because he speaks his mind, even though you don't agree with him. Tell him why and make him think more about it and respond. The last thing we need on this website is to have Tom Doak say expressing his opinion is not worth it.

Then what're we going to be left with on this site? Just a lot  of attempted unanamity?--the very thing Macdonald thought showed an example of the 'commonplace'.

[redanman]

Sometimes I wonder why I bother, though.  This discussion was entirely one-sided, with most people gushing over a golf hole they have never seen, and I thought it was fair for someone who had seen it to play Devil's Advocate.

In truth, particularly as it relates to par-3 holes, it is most often simply the raw setting of a hole that makes us like it or not.

Tom D,

Do bother.  You for better or worse earned early notariety for your outspokenness, and have backed it up.  If you don't, how can the rest of us armchair critics bring any semblance of reason to discusions such as these.

AS for the second part I edited, that is the beauty of a par three, you have a tee and a target, the best holes have ground strategy, the rest is candy, that is why there are so many photogenic "poster" par 3's that become rote.  But Par 3's can be the most fun of all holes because the tee shot has no leeway, you cannot make up for incomplete execution of your choice on a par 3 in hte same way that you can on a 4 or 5.

But, the effusive praise based soley on pictures for most of the posters given the comments on this site previously regarding such a faux pas is laughable.  Get real fellas.  Same bunch of guys who discussed aesthetics on Rees Jones before?

That paragraph is not a negative or derogatory post about Friar's Head, so don't even get an inkling of that idea.  (Tom Paul read this post ten times before lambasting me and writing another 800 word tome without  reading it before hitting post.)


Question for those previously on site:
Can you get a glimpse of the green prior to arriving on the tee in the normal rotation of holes?  If not, what is the "strategy" of a massive green with a blind pin and just guessing  at where it is (as has been implied)?  I love the rub of the green, quirk and uncertainty as much as anyone, but if only the caddy knows and tells you to hit a "knock-down 7-iron", is that strategy?

A/t TEP , G Shack said:
"Options, risks, mental dilemmas, decisions, mystery solving, intelligence, bravery. That's what strategy is all about."

  Sometimes strategy involves multiple shots, on a par 3, you have but a single shot.


I offer  further thoughts on strategy:

Using strategy is determining options and relative risk/reward of each.  Ground contours determine par 3 strategy as much as anything as there become choices to reach a particular spot.  If you don't have any idea where that spot is it is a fun and perplexing challenge, but a very shaded meaning of strategy as little skill is required to guess a position and a distance with no hints (If  pin is undeterminable on a green 18k ft2).  Right pins, if visible show hints as to distance as I understand it?

#10 Friar's Head appears unmatched in FLEXIBILITY, sometimes a part of STRATEGIC  FLEXIBILITY, but does flexibility imply strategy simply on its own?  What percentage of strategy is lock?  Are they antithetical?


Quoting from the first post:

variable strategies on that hole?   Choices?

that sort of elastic strategy at both ends? Flexibility?

Quirkiness?  Yes.  I can envision Tommy Naccarato rolling around on both the tee and green.

Great betting hole and a great addition to architecture.  You'll never wear out that green.  I would imagine always looking forward to such a hole.

[redanman]

TEP posted when I was writing.

Adding internal contour would add strategy.   The hole already has flexibility.

The best holes have strategy, flexibility and strategic flexibility.

Can you sneak a peek at #10 green from #9 fairway (If I am reading the routing from the aerial correctly?)

[Ken Bakst]

During the Golden Age of Architecture, architects freely commented about courses designed by their “competitors” and that free flowing exchange of ideas and critiques was probably very good for the art of golf course architecture.  The nature of the golf business today and, in particular, the influence of ratings and rankings may make that type of exchange of ideas and critiques perhaps “politically incorrect,” but that is really unfortunate in my opinion.  Just think about it, if the golf magazines didn’t rate/rank golf courses, would anybody have questioned Tom Doak’s motives or intentions at all or to any great degree?

I for one was actually quite pleased to read Tom’s comments.  I’ll take his critiques any way I can get them.  In fact, I tried to pry out of him any negative thoughts that he might have had when I ran into him at the end of his walk around Friar’s Head, but I wasn’t able to get him to do so at that time.  Of course, I am certainly not going to just agree with every comment or thought that Tom expresses, nor should anybody else for that matter, but frankly I don’t think Tom would want me or anybody else to do that anyway.  However, any comment or thought that Tom Doak does express is going to make me think long and hard, and if I thought there was validity to his thoughts and I could do something about it for the betterment of Friar’s Head, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

When I said the 10th hole didn't need to be defended,
I meant verbally, by you or anyone else, not physically.

The next thing I know, you'll misinterpret my remarks to such a degree that you'll be standing on the mound in front of the green with a butterfly net on a long pole, trying to defend the green.  

Tom Doak,

I think the 6th at NGLA presents such a thin target that most golfers don't look at the pin and say where can I miss it, other than when the pin is tucked deep left or short right, when prudent play for the higher handicap is more center oriented.  I think # 10 at FH is more strategic because you have far more club selection options than exist at # 6 at NGLA.   I think # 10 at FH offers bail out options, vis a vis club selection, and I don't think bail out options reasonably exist to most golfers at # 6 at NGLA.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

When I said the 10th hole didn't need to be defended,
I meant verbally, by you or anyone else, not physically.

The next thing I know, you'll misinterpret my remarks to such a degree that you'll be standing on the mound in front of the green with a butterfly net on a long pole, trying to defend the green."

Well, Pat, if you meant verbally, perhaps you could have said so verbally! This is just another in a long line of examples of why no one ever understands you. How can you expect anyone to understand what goes on in that bolluxed mind of yours if you don't say exactly what you're trying to express in words (text here Pat). Reading anyone's mind isn't easy but reading yours is a virtual impossiblity.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

P.S.  Make sure you wear a goalie's mask and a catcher's chest protector, those line drive misses can hurt.

Oh, and also dress in international orange, you'll present a better target.

[TEPaul]

Patrick says;

"Tom Doak,

I think the 6th at NGLA presents such a thin target that most golfers don't look at the pin and say where can I miss it,"

Patrick;

What Tom Doak appears to be saying is at least strategic implications exist on NGLA's #6. If mindless golfers, such as yourself, don't avail themselves of those strategic implications then that's your problem and their problem. That doesn't mean the hole doesn't have some serious and interesting strategic options and possiblities for geniuses such as Tom Doak and I who can obviously outthink and outfox the likes of you anyday.

[TEPaul]

And don't be a mushbrain and construe that to mean we'll beat you everyday--that's not the point here--that's only golf--this is architecture! It only means that everyday, every hole, every course we'll outfox and outthink your soxes off!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

YES, YES, you're right, the problem is, not only do you and Tom Doak outthink and outfox ME, but you also outthink and outfox YOURSELVES.

Hitting the 6th green at NGLA, understanding that it's usually swept by a little wind, is not so easy, even for the likes of you and Tom Doak, that's a pretty narrow target.

Ken Bakst,

Genuine, constructive criticism is healthy, and everyone benefits from it.

Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

I however, would change the nomenclature to, fine tuning.

[TEPaul]

redanman said;

"(Tom Paul read this post ten times before lambasting me and writing another 800 word tome without  reading it before hitting post.)"

redanman:

This kind of remark is only further evidence of how you jump to conclusions far too often (particularly given my posts on here). It also proves I can post at least ten 800 word posts before you can post one short one. Why would you assume such defensiveness when we seem to be on the same page?

[Ken Bakst]

Tom Doak

You are absolutely right that every long par 3 could be set up this way if you so desired (although perhaps to a lesser degree due to green length).  In fact, the 4th hole at Friar’s Head could be set up to play as short as about 120 from the forward tee to the front pins or as long as 250 from the back tee to the farthest back left pin location.  But the thought of using the forward tee for “championship” level play on the 4th hole never entered my mind, nor would it, so it might be worth pondering why that might be!  It’s also worth noting that C&C did not design and build this hole with the forward tee setup for “championship” level play in mind and that tee is far too small to do this on a regular basis in any event.  What Ran was clearly referring to in his profile was my thought, which I have expressed to a number of people, to use the forward tee to the front left pin as a setup option for tournament play, which was something that just dawned on me during construction, and that’s only one of a number of pin locations that we might use for that purpose.  When I am asked the length of the 10th hole, I simply say about 210 from the back, with the flexibility to play from 185 to 235 due to the green length.

You noted that there are only “modest internal contours” on the 10th green as the basis for your thought that the hole lacks strategy.   Although I don’t believe that even a green with minimal pitch would invalidate the basic strategy of the hole, which relates to how you choose to approach the day’s  pin location in relation to the wind, the mound, the firmness of the green and the dune features framing it, your decision is made all the more difficult because the green is very deceiving and has far more pitch and slope than you may have perceived.  Now I know you didn’t have the opportunity to actually play the hole yet, but I can’t tell you how pleased I am to learn that even you were perhaps fooled on your first look!  That green is without question one of the most difficult to read on the golf course, which might account for why I myself have 3-putted it more than any other at Friar’s Head.   I know you will be able to figure out the deception if you give it some thought, but I would appreciate your not disclosing the reason here, as it would be far more fun for people to experience it first and figure it out for themselves.  Also, hitting this green is only the beginning of the odyssey, so if you ignore the strategic implications of this hole and just aim at the center of the green every time, you are going to exit that green with bogey or worse far more times than you would like!

I would greatly appreciate your doing me a great favor.  Describe if you would the basic slope orientation of the 10th green and provide an estimate of the gradient of the slopes?  It would be quite interesting for me to know how close or far your initial impressions were from reality.  Also, while the green is basically rectangular shape, as it is almost twice as long as it is at its widest point, as you can see from the aerial in Ran’s profile it does narrow significantly towards the back and the center axis of the entire green is angled toward the center of the 9th green.

By the way, isn’t the objective on every hole to try to get the ball as close to the pin as possible?