Do a few holes or shots make a golf course? (spinoff from Kyle's roundtable #2)

[Jay Cox]

Kyle asked what would make you want to come back a course that you had just played for the first time.  

Bretto Hutto said: "a few specific holes that I want to play again."
Cory Lewis said: "Something unique, if there is a wow hole, I will be back."
Kyle said: "A good, simple opening hole."
I said, among othe things: "Individual shots that are a joy to hit."

Do others agree that a few holes or shots carry one's first impression of a golf course?  
Does the same effect exist in reverse -- i.e., do a few poor holes or shots cause a negative first impression even if the rest is good?
Is any "few holes" effect limited to one's decision to play a course a second time after playing it once, or does it have a similar impact on one's decision to play it an eleventh time after finishing one's tenth?

What is a golf course that you think is great that is carried by a few fantastic shots or holes?
What is a golf course that you think is great even though it does not have a few standout holes?
What is a golf course that has a few fantastic shots or holes that you nevertheless don't think is very good?

[Andy Troeger]

Jay,
I'm not sure I can think of anything I rank really highly ONLY because it has a few standout holes, generally the majority of holes have to be at least in the good/solid range I would think, but a couple standouts certainly helps things.

In looking back through my top fifty or so courses quickly I did not see any that I thought just had a couple standout holes. Courses like Arcadia Bluffs (#11, 12, 13) and Canyata (#3, 4, 5) both benefit from having the one really amazing stretch of holes, but both are very solid otherwise so I don't think they really fit your questions. Arcadia takes the cake out of those two though pretty easily.

The course I did come to on my list was Stonehenge GC at Fairfield Glade in Tennessee. Its not as strong as the others, but is made by #14 and #15, a drop shot par three with a lake in the background and then a par five with a drive over the lake then back up the hill to the green. The rest of the course is pretty standard but those two holes are very special and make the course worth coming back for.

The Ridge at Castle Pines might also somewhat fit this criteria. The front nine was typical housing golf, but there were a few holes near the end of the round that improved my view of the course significantly...#10, #12, #16, #17 made it worth spending the day there.

[Andy Troeger]

After re-reading your post I didn't really answer your questions :-)

I can overcome a few mediocre holes on a course if the majority are worthwhile. I'm not a big fan of #13 at Blackwolf Run River, but the course is fabulous.

The course I played back in South Bend, Blackthorn, has a few really good holes IMO, but there were some I didn't care for so much. The good part about that course was that even the ones that I did not think worked still gave you a few options as to how to play them, which made it more enjoyable.

Every course I really like has some strong holes. At a course like The Golf Club, it is hard to pick out one or two that rise above the rest just because there's no real weakness, but if pressed I could still do it (#3, 6, 16 come to mind).

The Ridge at Castle Pines would most likely be my answer that I still don't think is that great. Not terrible, but not worth $80-120 for me to play it again even with the better back nine.

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:

From a designer's perspective, I would rank the priorities as follows:

1.  You've got to find 3-4 great holes to make an impression;
2.  You've got to avoid ANY bad holes, though you can get away with one or two if the others are exciting enough; and
3.  The holes which aren't great have to be strong (in relation to par) or interesting (in terms of strategy), and strike complementary notes to the great ones.

A course that's carried by a few fantastic holes or shots?  That's easy ... Pebble Beach.  Royal Troon is another.

A great course without any standout holes?  I can't see calling a course like that "great".  That's exactly the reason I can't call some of those eminently tough-but-fair championship courses "great".

A course with a few fantastic shots but that really isn't very good?  Carne is one of those for me; there are just too many funky shots to complement the few wow! moments.  But, in general, I still find those courses fun and worthwhile to play ... the lack of a good supporting cast just keeps them out of the top 100 lists.

[Sean_A]

Jay:

From a designer's perspective, I would rank the priorities as follows:

1.  You've got to find 3-4 great holes to make an impression;
2.  You've got to avoid ANY bad holes, though you can get away with one or two if the others are exciting enough; and
3.  The holes which aren't great have to be strong (in relation to par) or interesting (in terms of strategy), and strike complementary notes to the great ones.

A course that's carried by a few fantastic holes or shots?  That's easy ... Pebble Beach.  Royal Troon is another.

A great course without any standout holes?  I can't see calling a course like that "great".  That's exactly the reason I can't call some of those eminently tough-but-fair championship courses "great".

A course with a few fantastic shots but that really isn't very good?  Carne is one of those for me; there are just too many funky shots to complement the few wow! moments.  But, in general, I still find those courses fun and worthwhile to play ... the lack of a good supporting cast just keeps them out of the top 100 lists.

Tom D

This sounds like a perfect description of Addington to me.  Its a good parkland course turned into a wonderful by having holes like  8 (love it or hate it there is certainly a certain wow factor here), 12, 13 & 16.  

So far as Carne goes - isn't the course a product of minimal design not least because of budget reasons?  Of course these things are subjective, but I would find it difficult to fault the course for its funk when the cash wasn't there to build a more modern and presumably predictable design.  Given time, I think Carne will be seen in light of greatness it deserves - not just as a wierd, out of this world design.  Afterall, Cruden Bay and to some degree Machrihanish have been able to shine despite all their funk.  As good as they are, IMO, Carne runs circles around these two courses.

Ciao

[Jay Cox]

Andy,
I'll forgive you for not answering all of the questions on the first try.  There sure were a lot of them!  
Blackwolf Run is an interesting example.  Almost everyone I know who has played the course has strongly disliked at least one hole (13 is a popular choice, and my choice, with 9 and 16 also receiving votes), but had very positive things to say about the course as a whole.  

Tom,
Very interesting!  I had always assumed that, while players might focus on a few exhilirating holes or shots (or a few negatively memorable holes or shots) in evaluating a course, a designer would simply try to maximize the overall quality of holes and let the great ones emerge organically, instead of conciously prioritizing the creation of great holes.  But it makes perfect sense.
 
Can you think of a case in which the order of your priorities mattered -- e.g., where you could have avoided an indifferent or bad hole but did not because you would have had to sacrifice a great hole in the process, or where you accepted one or two weaker supporting holes to avoid one bad one?

With respect to great courses without great holes, I meant to ask about courses with a few holes that stand out from the rest of the course.  Do you really think that there are none of those?  That was my reaction to Oakmont:  I thought that there were many great holes, but no standout holes within the flow of the course.  I finished and wanted to go right out and play again, but there wasn't any one hole or shot specifically that I wanted to play over and over again.  I recognize that my reaction to Oakmont might be idiosyncratic, but isn't it possible to have a great course that commonly elicits my reaction to Oakmont?


Sean,
Regarding Carne, you said:

I would find it difficult to fault the course for its funk when the cash wasn't there to build a more modern and presumably predictable design.

Isn't that a reason why Carne might be great architecture even if it's not a great course?  (I'm in no position to argue the merits of Carne specifically, having never been there.  From what I've read, I imagine I'd love it, since I tend to fetishize both natural golf and quirk.  But I don't see why the budget has any bearing on our assessment of the golf course as a golf course instead of as a feat of design.)

[Sean_A]

Sean,
Regarding Carne, you said:

I would find it difficult to fault the course for its funk when the cash wasn't there to build a more modern and presumably predictable design.

Isn't that a reason why Carne might be great architecture even if it's not a great course?  (I'm in no position to argue the merits of Carne specifically, having never been there.  From what I've read, I imagine I'd love it, since I tend to fetishize both natural golf and quirk.  But I don't see why the budget has any bearing on our assessment of the golf course as a golf course instead of as a feat of design.)

Jay

Thats just it, I think Carne is a great feat of design probably because there wasn't a budget to come in and bulldoze the joint then litter it with what would have been unnecessary bunkering.  It is well and truly a throwback design.  Mother nature dictated the routing of this course in the extreme.  It is a course I can't wait to get back to.  Whether or not that means its good or not I don't know, but if I am desperate to go back then in my book anyway, its much more than merely a good course.  

I once had a teacher in high school who told me to pay attention to The Clash.  Someday, folks will tout them as the greatest rock n roll band ever.  I was doubtful then, but now I tend to agree with ole Mr. Thorn.  Take my advice, get out to Carne and be one of the guys that said "I knew it when..."

Ciao

[Jay Cox]

Sean,
I will do so as soon as time permits!

[KBanks]

Sean,

I was very taken with Carne, and agree with you about the nature of its appeal, but, do you really think it is materially better than Machrihanish and Cruden Bay? Those are two pretty special courses.

Ken

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I was very taken with Carne, and agree with you about the nature of its appeal, but, do you really think it is materially better than Machrihanish and Cruden Bay? Those are two pretty special courses.

Ken

Ken

I think Carne is well beyond CB and Mach (and yes, both are special).  Both of those course have holes which are poor - especially Cruden Bay.  On the other hand, CB has two terrific par 5s, a feat hard to accomplish.  Mach finishes a bit weakly, but the flipside is that the starting 11 is one of the best stretches in golf.  You get everything and if you can't smile for that first 2 hours you don't love the game.  

Carne doesn't have the magic yet like the other two do.  Perhaps it will never get that certain something that tourism seems to rob a place of.  However, the course is stronger from start to finish.  All the shots are out there, its just a matter of having the balls to take them on.  Carne can be brutal and that is my only reservation about the place.  The wind never lets up out there so controlling the ball flight can be exasperating.  I will get another look next year.  

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

About Carne:  I know it was supposedly built on a shoestring budget as a labor of love, but what I disliked about it was that there were some places where they obviously moved some earth -- benching off #17 fairway for example -- and they made a very poor effort of tying them in.  Once you've got the dozer on site it doesn't take much more to finish the job correctly.  Neither Cruden Bay nor Machrihanish has any such issue.

Jay:  There are some people who insist Pinehurst No. 2 has no standout holes, and now you insist Oakmont doesn't ... if I were to accept that, then I'd have to agree there are great courses without them.  But I feel there are standout holes on both courses, just a lot of them.

As for my priorities, I must have stated them somewhat wrong, because I will never deliberately stick myself with a bad hole in order to build a great one [though I have certainly seen other architects do it].  I guess if a property gave me only one chance to build a great hole, I might go for it instead of sticking to 18 "good but boilerplate" holes ... but my experience is that where there is one great golf hole to be found, there are usually more, if you know where to look.

[Sean_A]

About Carne:  I know it was supposedly built on a shoestring budget as a labor of love, but what I disliked about it was that there were some places where they obviously moved some earth -- benching off #17 fairway for example -- and they made a very poor effort of tying them in.  Once you've got the dozer on site it doesn't take much more to finish the job correctly.  Neither Cruden Bay nor Machrihanish has any such issue.

Tom

You are the expert, but I would have thought to do shaping correctly is where the cost lies - ie paying people who know what they are doing - that costs money no?  I thought the 9th looked a bit strange as well, but I don't think the hole suffers for it like a misplaced bunker would cause.

You are right about CB and Mach, but CB didn't use the land available to best advantage and the course suffers for it.  The little course in the middle is on some of the best land on the site.  Instead we get holes like the 2nd, 9th & 14th & 15th.  These aren't clever holes.  I don't think Mach suffers so much with this inconsistency, but the finish is like a dead fish.  Though I admit to liking 16 more than others might.  


Ciao

[Andy Troeger]

Jay,
I do agree that Blackwolf Run does tend to have holes that people don't care for, besides #13 I would have said I've heard more complaints about #9 and #12. I would have said most people really like #16.

In any case, I think Blackwolf Run might have as many exceptional holes in my book as any course I've played. #1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16 would be my first six but I like many others. I think the par fives are the best set I've played.

It probably is a decent example of what you're talking about, but I think its far too strong in general to say that its carried by a couple holes. You could say that 1-2 holes (varying to the golfer) tend to take away a little bit.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Yes, good shapers can be fairly expensive, but if the architect is really devoted to the project he just needs to stand there and keep watching until the shaping looks good.  Maybe it takes an extra day or two sometimes, but if you're working on a site like that, it's hard to defend not taking the time.

[Jay Cox]

Jay:  There are some people who insist Pinehurst No. 2 has no standout holes, and now you insist Oakmont doesn't ... if I were to accept that, then I'd have to agree there are great courses without them.  But I feel there are standout holes on both courses, just a lot of them.

Tom, I think that we're largely just quibbling about the definition of "standout."  

When I used it, I meant a hole or shot whose impact on the player transcends the impact of the course as a whole.  To me, Pebble Beach is the perfect example.  After finishing a round, most players will want to play again so that they can have another crack at 7, or 18, or the approach to 8.  Those holes and shots are standouts.

Now, I certainly agree with you that Oakmont has (lots of)great holes.  So if "standout" just means "great," then you're completely right that Oakmont isn't a good example.  But I can't imagine many people saying that the reason that they want to play Oakmont again is because they want to play the 3rd hole again.

To take it back to Kyle's original question, for me, the reason to play Pebble Beach again is (quoting Brett) "a few specific holes that I want to play again."  The reason to play Oakmont again is something broader about the general experience.  

Do you think that that distinction makes sense, or am I hammering at air?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Human nature being what it is, golfers seem to comment on the bad holes first.  Those who study such things say that you must have seven positive impressions to balance a negative one. Call it 8:1 and you have your ratio of good to average or outright bad holes that might be acceptable.

I think those numbers can be skewed with sequencing.  Spyglass loads its best holes early.  If it were reversed, the similarities of the other holes might bore you before you got there, and you would say "Ho Hum course with great finish!"  PB benefits from its figure 8 routing which exposes you to the ocean at different points. If you left the ocean for more than a few holes at a time, I think you would lose some of the effect.

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:

Your definition of "standout" makes perfect sense; for some people a great hole would still not be a standout hole because there is not an air of anticipation about it.  If that's your definition, there are a lot of great courses without a standout hole.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Yes, good shapers can be fairly expensive, but if the architect is really devoted to the project he just needs to stand there and keep watching until the shaping looks good.  Maybe it takes an extra day or two sometimes, but if you're working on a site like that, it's hard to defend not taking the time.

Tom

Perhaps Carne should have paid whatever extra to get a archie in who wasn't literally on his last legs - if they could have afforded to.  I suspect you would be quite proud if you are producing anything like the quality of Carne when you are 80 something and getting paid a song and a dance for your efforts.

Ciao