What Makes for a Great Driving Hole?

[Phil Benedict]

An accompanying thread about great driving courses has evoked some curious responses.  Tom Doak, of all people, is dismissive of the very notion, saying that every course set up for the US Open is by definition a great driving course.  Sean Arbie, on the other hand, complains that the thread has morphed into a discussion of courses that are long and tight - where the driving challeneges are daunting.  

I take Sean's side and I thought I would try to break the discussion down to the level of an actual hole.  My, admittedly arbitrary definition of a great driving hole is one where big advantage is gained from superior execution, but where recovery from average or indifferent execution is still possible.  

I will provide one example of a hole many of us are familiar with - the 6th at Yale.  It's a dogleg left with a hazard hugging the left side of the fairway, about 430 yards from the tips.  There is nothing visually intimidating about the drive as there is plenty of room, mostly to the right.  What makes it great is that challenging the left side hazard yields big advantages in terms of second shot club and angle of approach.  But you can still bail out to the right and have a chance, albeit a much longer second shot.  It's just a great driving hole, but it's not tight at all.

Any other examples?

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

A truly great driving hole in my book would be a hole where there is a reward (better angle to the green) for playing to a specific part of the fairway, a good hazard or hazards guarding that part of the fairway, and some sort of incremental difficulty for driving away from the hazards and the garden spot.  (I'm talking about a progressively poorer angle of approach, NOT about graduated rough going from one inch to three to six, although it's okay to introduce rough into the equation somewhere along the way.)

There are very few golf holes anymore which fit this bill.

I've been studying some of the Tour's Shotlink data to try and determine if the pros ever aim for one side of the fairway over the other, or whether they just aim dead center and rip it.  There are SOME holes which show a preference, but usually they are preferring to avoid a hazard off the tee instead of risking a hazard for the sake of position.

My general feeling is that if position off the tee isn't imperative for the second shot, then it's impossible to have a great driving course, although you can still have a tough test of driving.  That's what I was trying to get at in my comments on the "great driving course" thread.

[Scott Szabo]

Tom,

I think that this can be attributed to two things: softer playing conditions and better technology.

Today's professionals can put so much spin on the ball that it really doesn't matter many times if they approach the green from the "preferred" side of the fairway.  

One of the better driving holes that I've recently played is the one you did at Ballyneal - #12.  Challenge the bunker comples to the left and you are rewarded with a straightforward play into the green.  Don't want to challenge the narrow portion of the fairway I spoke of?  There's plenty of room to the right, but you will face a blind, uphill shot off of a sidehill lie over a nasty bunker (I was in it when I played, so I know all about it!).

Sand Hills also offers plenty of challenges off the tee - #1, 5, 14, and 16 (just to name a few) come to mind where an aggressive play over or close to a bunker complex will reward the golfer with an extra fifty or sixty yards of roll, making the par fives much easier to approach.

While many talk of US Open courses being great driving courses, I don't always see it that way.  I would agree that they are great "tests" of driving, but I don't usually see alot of strategy with such penal rough on BOTH sides of the fairways.

Just my two cents....

[Geoffrey Childs]

Phil

THe 6th at Yale is one of my favorite holes.  Its a Macdonald template of the Leven Hole for just the strategy you describe.  In addition to your description, the left side near the creek allows a direct view and approach to the green while the bailout to the right is semi blind and must carry what used to be my favorite bunker on the course.

Green complex in 1991 (before Rulewich)


6 green about 1940 (note how the bunker extends up into the green on the right)


#6 from the fairway on the left (note Tom Huckaby staring at the green   )


#6 from green to tee after Rulewich butchered the bunkers


#6 bunker before Rulewich


#6 green to tee viewing Rulewich masterpiece bunkers

[Phil McDade]

May I just say that it has been far too long on this discussion board since the good doctor gave Mr. Rulewich the whatfor over Yale's butchered bunkering.

Glad to see you're still in form.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Phil    

I hope to go up there in the spring and see that Scott Ramsay has removed all the freekin trees up the left side of the hole so you can actually view the green from the (back) tee. He totally has things under control and understands the architecture and what needs to be done.  The athletic dept is giving him full reign of the place so all is well.

Rulewich will never get it and should have known better.  He will not get credit (if I can help it) that is due to Scott Ramsay and even now the athletic dept for a great turnaround of a great course.

[Adam_Messix]

A great driving hole comes in two different packages in my mind....  The first one is the hole that Tom Doak mentioned early, a hole with a fairly wide fairway that rewards a drive played into the correct portion of the fairway with a better angle to the green/hole location.  

The other kind of great driving hole is one that punishes someone who tries to arbitrarily blast it down the center.  This is the kind of hole that requires the player to curve their drive a bit.  This is why I like the tee shot on 12 at Oakmont so much, you pretty much have to draw the ball into that slope or it's rolling into the right rough.  

[Lloyd_Cole]

Phil:

A truly great driving hole in my book would be a hole where there is a reward (better angle to the green) for playing to a specific part of the fairway, a good hazard or hazards guarding that part of the fairway, and some sort of incremental difficulty for driving away from the hazards and the garden spot.

Tom, that sounds like Harbour Town.

I agree with that. I also think good Cape holes are great driving holes as they can test almost all golfers in deciding how much they dare cut off.

For the pros, they need to be challenged, and the only way to do that these days is to have them shape the shot. Anything which forces them to do this makes better viewing IMHO.

[Aaron Katz]

The two greatest driving holes that come immediately to mind at midnight (I'm in the middle of writing a brief) are:  The 5th at Bethpage and the 10th at Augusta.  I think the 5th at Olympic Club also qualifies -- indiscriminate bombing is punished severely, and to hit driver really requires the player to shape his shot.

[Mike Nuzzo]

There are very few golf holes anymore which fit this bill.

Does a good driving hole require a driver from the tee - to have any realistic chance of being on in regulation?
Is Riviera's 10th a good driving hole?
What does that shotlink data look like?

[John Kirk]

Risk and reward.

I like driving the ball at Stone Eagle.

Would you consider the 18th at TPC Sawgrass, or any good "Cape" hole,  a good driving hole?