[Jim Bearden]

In looking at the board it is interesting to note that the discusion is CPC this, ANGC that, Pine Valley whatever. It seems to me that rather than discussing actual courses and hole attributes GCA should endevour over a period of time to design or discuss the design of an 18 hole course one hole at a time. The rules would be simple no discussion of actual holes, the design would include all physical attributes and how best to play the hole. You can borrow from existing courses but only with minimal influence.

I feel that while I am back after a long absence that if this is of interest I would encourage a longer standing member to start with the first hole.

[Jason Topp]

I don't qualify as a real experienced contributer, but here is my crack at a first hole:

325- 350 yards, slightly downhill, slight dogleg right into prevailing wind.  Wide fairway, rumpled, with a flat spot 150 from center of green on the left side of the fairway.

Green has hill on right side that makes shot from right side blind.  There is a swale to the left of the green mowed closely to allow for a variety of chipping options.  Green is deep and narrow, slopes right to left and slightly front to back.  Front of the green is open and flat.

No bunkers on the hole.

This would be a gentle handshake opener with decisions off the tee.  Try and drive near the green and face an akward short shot or play wide and have a longer visible shot.  Fast firm conditions make the shorter option tempting.  Finally, one can play short and have an open shot from a flat lie.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

This exercise might be contrary to a possible ultimate and final truth about ideal golf courses. That is, that they cannot be designed conceptual without the actual land under your feet. (or your horses)

With that preface, I'd say this neophite of an idealist, would attempt to create an ideal first hole which introduces you to the remainder. It can have simialr attributes, features or look (or not) to the rest of the holes, or it can transition out to them. What ever it is, it can not and should not be pre-conceived unless the entire lanscape is being formed. ala    lubbock's the Rawls.

[Jim Bearden]

Adam

Obviously you must have land to actually build but in this case the land conforms to the design.
My fisrt hole is 350 to 400 yards downhill drive large fairway bunker left grass bunker right. Short shot to elevated green trees left(40 feet from edge) bunker right. Green is relatively level with gentle contours. While the rest of the course will be different the opening hole is to only be like a flirtatious young lady with the danger to follow. Par 4 plays to a 3.75 for pros.

[Kyle Harris]

First Holes should tempt the golfer but not punish. Let him take a crack at doing something right out of the gate, with little to lose for not executing fully.

Bunkering should be lightly used and simple and the green should be one that can be putted out on quickly.

Ideal openers for me include Bethpage Black's 1st, the 1st hole on the PSU Blue Course and the first hole at Rolling Green.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jim Bearden- Rather funny that your description of your opening hole is exactly what Ken Dye designed here in Farmington, save for the gentle slopes on the greens. The irony is, it's now the tenth. The tragedy is, the current opener (original 10th) is a double water hazard dog leg. Yuck!

[Jim Bearden]

Jim Bearden- Rather funny that your description of your opening hole is exactly what Ken Dye designed here in Farmington, save for the gentle slopes on the greens. The irony is, it's now the tenth. The tragedy is, the current opener (original 10th) is a double water hazard dog leg. Yuck!

Not to get ahead of myself but I feel that the 1st and 10th holes should not be punative. BTW water hazards should be limited.

I think subtle contours should be used on an opening holes green are good in the confidence level and medium to severe (this may be to strong a term but I hope the point is made)slopes should be used as the ultimate arbitor of shotmaking and scoring

[A_Clay_Man]

YA see Jim, There's my original point. You can of course do whatever you want to your course. But IMO just having these few restrictions or "rules" limits any ideal courses potential. Every situation is different, and here, at the course I made reference to, it just does not work in the reverse configuration. But in the original, when making that turn, you were primed for a double water dog leg.

[Tom_Doak]

The ideal golf course is the one that makes best use of the ground you've got.

It's dangerous for an architect to have preconceptions of what the first hole or eighteenth hole should be like, because frequently those preconceptions will get in the way of a better hole which is just laying there.

[Doug Wright]

Funny Tom but Jason's description of a first hole above sounds just like #1 at Pacific Dunes (except PD has a greenside bunker)!

[Jim Bearden]

The ideal golf course is the one that makes best use of the ground you've got.

It's dangerous for an architect to have preconceptions of what the first hole or eighteenth hole should be like, because frequently those preconceptions will get in the way of a better hole which is just laying there.

Iagrre however this is merely an excersize to get people thikning about design not implementing it or commenting on existing design. I believe that design theory is 90% imagination and 10% implementation.

[Jim Bearden]

YA see Jim, There's my original point. You can of course do whatever you want to your course. But IMO just having these few restrictions or "rules" limits any ideal courses potential. Every situation is different, and here, at the course I made reference to, it just does not work in the reverse configuration. But in the original, when making that turn, you were primed for a double water dog leg.

If that is the case with the original design and the couse naturally is geared from hole to hole with design continuity then you get no argument from me. I am however of the bell curve school with the most difficult in the middle of each nine.

Now if you ask me why I don't really know but it appeals to my sense of proportion.

[Jim Thompson]

I've never understood the case for the easy opener or the warm-up hole or the quick pace first.  It seems to me that nothing screws up the pace of play and overall experience faster than removing or compromising the spacing of players by the second tee.  Compressing the accordian only serves to make all players wait for every problem that happens in front of them.  

So my ideal links would start off with a nice 3-4 iron par 3, eliminating one of the dreaded waiting periods in the round.  To compromise a simple par 4 of 425+ or anyless with some difficulty added to fairway rather than green to hold off the next group on the tee rather than the green.

Cheers!

JT

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim Thompson,

I recall Bob O Link in Chicago started with the number one handicap hole, and never seemed to suffer for it.

Interesting point about starting with a par 3.  The closest thing I have seen to this is a gca recommending a par 3 10th, figuring that the golfers would be stopping to eat anyway, so he could combine the wait on the par 3 with the time to eat.

I have heard one gca say he likes to start with a tough hole - just to show the golfers who the boss around there is!

JIm Bearden.

Actually, I love the topic of speaking conceptually to various holes.  Most people have trouble thinking like that, and the disucssion ends up with real world examples that most can understand.  I am going to give something a try in a separate thread, though. See if you like it.

[TEPaul]

This may sound as if it's off the topic or subject here but what is meant by an "ideal" golf course?

Macdonald had his own unique definition for an "ideal" golf course but it seems there are many on here who think an "ideal" golf course is one that accomodates every level of golfer really well. If that's the definition of an "ideal" golf course I would submit that an "ideal" golf course is one that has a high course rating and a relatively low slope rating!!

(assuming, of course that the rating and slope are considered relatively accurate).

If a high course rating and a relatively low slope rating is an indication of a course that accomodates every level of player well (the "ideal") I would point to Aronimink, as it has very high course rating and a remarkably low slope rating, perhaps more so than any other course I'm aware of. In that sense the course should accomodate every level of golfer almost as well as a course can.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Most of those golden lagers, I mean golden agers, wrote of the ideal course in terms of sequence of holes, types of holes and shots, etc.  I do believe their target audience was fairly decent male players, playing a course repeatedly, so keeping interest over an entire golf season (or lifetime) was their main concern.  Most of their feature designs allowed for lesser skill players to scrape it around.

Since many here hang on every word they said, and they often wrote about the "ideal" course, I wonder why everyone subsequently says there can be no such attempt to define what ideal would be, if the land allowed.  (I think that is a given)

Of course, I think part of the ideal concept was to educate golfers in a less standardized era against things that had proven less than favorable, like starting with par 3 holes.  In CBM's case, his son in law proved to him the hard way of starting with too short a par 4, according to legend.

[Jason Topp]

TePaul - I think a course that accomodates all levels of players needs to be interesting for the following categories:

1.  The good player
2.  The short hitter that has control of the ball
3.  The poor player who may hit it a decent distance but has no idea where it is going; and
4.  The player who struggles to get the ball in the air


I think I have fit into all of these categories at one time or another, at least for a hole or two.

It seems to me a course with a high slope rating can accomodate each of these categories, by using difficult green complexes and driving hazards from which recovery is possible for category 1; appropriate rewards for accuracy for category 2, relatively benign penalties for extremely wayward shots for category 3 and forward tees, no cross hazards and an open entrance to the green for category four.  

Links courses are plenty difficult, but unless infested with gorse, they do a pretty good job of being fun for all such levels.  I have not played Pinehurst, but it seems to me it would qualify.  Many Midwestern and Eastern parkland courses also do pretty well in being appropriate for all of these categories, while still carrying a high slope rating.

Looking at it from this perspective also shows the shortcomings of desert courses, Florida courses, courses built through wetlands, and courses built through housing which can be impossible for categories 3 and 4 but still (mysteriously in my mind) have pretty low slope ratings.  If people actually played by the rules, they would either never finish or shoot 150.

The ultimate question is - is it better to sacrafice this ideal course if the land lends itself better to cater to the better or more accurate player?  It seems to me the answer depends on the desires of the people building the course and their potential customer base.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()