[Dan Moore]

If CBM were to undertake his quest for the ideal golf course today and could only use holes designed since 1960 as his templates, which holes would he use.  

I'll nominate one.  The Island hole 17th at the TPC.

[Jeff Doerr]

Dan,

I think the modern 18th with water down one side all the way through the green - also at Sawgrass.

A secondary question in your thread would be how many modern templates are there at Sawgrass?

[Dan Moore]

Isn't the 18th at Sawgrass simply an update of the Cape Hole template.  This should be limited to new concepts, not those based on the earlier templates.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

I think you could add in the pinched landing area, with bunkers on both sides, but only once per course, not over and over, a la RTJ and Wilson.

A little out of the time frame, but post CBM, a Maxwell rolling green, perhaps with extended chipping areas all around.

An exagerated long and narrow or shallow and wide green (Strantz and others)

The Valley Hole (even if not occurring naturally, a la Fazio)

The Mae West Hole (out of your time frame, but after CBM)

Cape Hole with Waste Bunker instead of water

The front center bunker green (C and C)

The delayed dog leg hole (Smyers and others)

The Zig Zag fw hole (Dye and others, but dating back to the Golden Age)

the Gull Wing Green (Riv 14 and others)

Just a short list of templates I see used over and over, sometimes even in my own work.......

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

You will be interested to know that Jack Nicklaus wanted NEVER to have bunkers pinching the fairway on both sides at Sebonack, at the same distance from the tee.  He insisted that they should always be staggered as you went down the fairway, with at least 30 yards of length between bunkers on opposite sides.

I guess he did not like Trent Jones' work very much, although he never said so.

I agree with you that doing it once or twice per round is fine.  I don't know if I would consider that a "template" though.

Glad to see you didn't have anything from me under your listed templates.  There are at least a couple of those which I almost NEVER use because I don't like them, but I'm not going to say which.

[Dan Moore]

Who originated the cape hole with waste bunker?  See it quite a bit in Dye, Art Hills and Nugent's work.  

The 2nd at Lawsonia (1930) may very well qualify as a Mae West hole.  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The desert target template, with small landing areas, and a minimum of turf.  

A template we may all be more familiar with as environmental concerns and water availability become more important.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I used pinch bunkers exactly twice in the last few years. I think it was Ron Whitten in reviewing one of those uses who noted that its very unusal to see these days, probably for reasons JN cites, or maybe just as an overreaction to that era or style.

However, like you, once per course, or nine, perhaps makes for testing an accurate drive. From Thomas' writings, I think they work best on nominally downwind and moderate length holes where you don't have to swing as hard.

Play coy if you like, but I do recall you writing here that you are sick of seeing the center bunker on a green from C and C!

[Tom_Doak]

Oops ... yes, I am sick of that particular green, although I have to admit they built one just like it on a short par-4 at Colorado Golf Club that I thought was one of the best holes I saw this year.  I just wish they wouldn't use one EVERYWHERE.

Since the sensitive one is out of the bag, I'll also note that I generally don't like the Mike Strantz wide and shallow green.  There are exceptions -- I love the 2nd green at St. Andrews, for example, but there aren't any bunkers in front of it, just the rolling mounds you can run the ball over if you're a weak hitter.  I hate a wide and shallow green with bunkers across the front.

[Kyle Henderson]

Tom D:

At Tobacco Road, I think the wide/shallow green was used well in both instances (Holes #6 and #17).

#6 has 2 sets of tees, such that the hole will sometimes play long and narrow, other times wide and shallow. Plus, the short nature of the hole makes distance control less problematic.

#17 is so wide that yardages on the tee box are given for left and right side hole locations. It's really plays as if it has alternate greens, though one's recovery shot might occasionally be played with a putter rather than out of the sandy surrounds. Also, the shot is short and downhill regardess of pin position, so distance control is once again less problematic than it might be otherwise.

Technically bunkers were not placed short of either surface as the sand was already there and one is allowed to ground their club (not officially bunkers).

[Mike Boehm]

Kyle -

Wouldn't the 15th at Tobacco Road also qualify as a wide and shallow green?  On my one round at TR, the hole played to its most accessible hole location (front-right), but and center or left side placements on that green looked borderline un-playable for most players.

Mike

[Kyle Henderson]

Kyle -

Wouldn't the 15th at Tobacco Road also qualify as a wide and shallow green?  On my one round at TR, the hole played to its most accessible hole location (front-right), but and center or left side placements on that green looked borderline un-playable for most players.

Mike

That depends on where your tee shot ends up. Downwind I've played a tee shot way over the right hand trees with driver such that the green played short right to long left.

I've also hit fairway wood to the left such that the green played wide and shallow (and blind).

But the green also has a lot of ramps and shelving to utilize when  playing your approach, so I find that I never just fired for the middle of the green yardage-wise unless I was at a ompletely blind angle.

The hole has lots of options and I don't think the approach plays anything like #6 or #17 99% or the time.

http://www.tobaccoroadgolf.com/hole6.html

http://www.tobaccoroadgolf.com/hole15.html

http://www.tobaccoroadgolf.com/hole17.html

[Jeff_Brauer]

Given how much they stand out as unique, I kind of thought Mike overdid the wide green by at least one at TR.  Funny, but we wouldn't think to critique 18 straight round greens.

[Kyle Henderson]

Given how much they stand out as unique, I kind of thought Mike overdid the wide green by at least one at TR.  Funny, but we wouldn't think to critique 18 straight round greens.

And I have to wonder if that critique would be greatly tempered if added a small finger here or there on one of those greens to makes it's shape marginally less "linear."

They look much more similar in the overheads than in person. The 6th green is much smaller, while the 15th green is much more undulated and plays more diagonally than the 17th, which in turn is the only green approached from an elevated vantage point.

Probably a bit overused, but I still like the general concept so long as multiple approach angles are part of the equation.

[Phil McDade]

If CBM were to undertake his quest for the ideal golf course today and could only use holes designed since 1960 as his templates, which holes would he use.  

I'll nominate one.  The Island hole 17th at the TPC.

Dan:

Isn't TPC's 17th simply a water-logged version of a Short? Compare the 17th at TPC (I've never played, but it usually plays as a wedge/9-iron for the pros, meaning it's a 6-8 iron for mortals) to the 7th at Lawsonia, which I'd argue is a pretty good version of a bunkerless Short. Don't TPC's 17th and Lawsonia's 7th essentially play as the same hole?

[Jim Nugent]

If CBM were to undertake his quest for the ideal golf course today and could only use holes designed since 1960 as his templates, which holes would he use.  

I'll nominate one.  The Island hole 17th at the TPC.

Gag.  

I sure hope not.  17th at TPC is a no options, 100% penal hole.  Isn't that exactly the opposite of what CBM built?  

[Sean_A]

Oops ... yes, I am sick of that particular green, although I have to admit they built one just like it on a short par-4 at Colorado Golf Club that I thought was one of the best holes I saw this year.  I just wish they wouldn't use one EVERYWHERE.

Since the sensitive one is out of the bag, I'll also note that I generally don't like the Mike Strantz wide and shallow green.  There are exceptions -- I love the 2nd green at St. Andrews, for example, but there aren't any bunkers in front of it, just the rolling mounds you can run the ball over if you're a weak hitter.  I hate a wide and shallow green with bunkers across the front.

This is a curious comment.  Why do the bunkers fronting a wide/shallow green put you off Tom?  

I agree that The Road overdoes the wide/shallow a bit: 6, 13 (for some reason overlooked thus far, but I think it is the most penal of the type) & 17.  15 is also one for those that can't monster a drive well right to try and get left of the 16th tee.

In a way, the long/narrow green is a similar deal because of the accuracy required on the pin (rather than pin high as it were).  #s 8, 9 & 14 are of this type.   Really, when combining the two types The Road is a bit overboard - but only just.  If there were grass chipping areas rather than waste areas (which I am not keen on) or water then I think the course would play better on these holes.  

Its amazing how many things about The Road when looked at individually are not right, but as a course, The Road certainly rises above these imperfections.  Why?  Because one gets to hit  a load of fun shots.  An awful lot can be forgiven if the course is fun.

Ciao

[Kyle Henderson]

Oops ... yes, I am sick of that particular green, although I have to admit they built one just like it on a short par-4 at Colorado Golf Club that I thought was one of the best holes I saw this year.  I just wish they wouldn't use one EVERYWHERE.

Since the sensitive one is out of the bag, I'll also note that I generally don't like the Mike Strantz wide and shallow green.  There are exceptions -- I love the 2nd green at St. Andrews, for example, but there aren't any bunkers in front of it, just the rolling mounds you can run the ball over if you're a weak hitter.  I hate a wide and shallow green with bunkers across the front.

This is a curious comment.  Why do the bunkers fronting a wide/shallow green put you off Tom?  

I agree that The Road overdoes the wide/shallow a bit: 6, 13 (for some reason overlooked thus far, but I think it is the most penal of the type) & 17.  15 is also one for those that can't monster a drive well right to try and get left of the 16th tee.

In a way, the long/narrow green is a similar deal because of the accuracy required on the pin (rather than pin high as it were).  #s 8, 9 & 14 are of this type.   Really, when combining the two types The Road is a bit overboard - but only just.  If there were grass chipping areas rather than waste areas (which I am not keen on) or water then I think the course would play better on these holes.  

Its amazing how many things about The Road when looked at individually are not right, but as a course, The Road certainly rises above these imperfections.  Why?  Because one gets to hit  a load of fun shots.  An awful lot can be forgiven if the course is fun.

Ciao

At first I thought you were referring to "The Road Hole" instead of Tobacco Road...

Regarding #13 at Tobacco: The relatively blind nature of the hole, and the scrub around the green are penal to be sure. However, the "dellish" nature is such that I watched many an approach shot kick onto the playing surface from slightly short, left, right and behind the green. So the effective target area is greater than the actual surface itself.

I'm all for variety within and between courses, and the "2 dimentional" aspects of Tobaccos greens may be imperfect in that sense, but I think the variety of diagonals, relative length and elevation of approach shots, and recovery options from hole to hole keep the course fresh for all 18 holes.

Some courses with semi-recycled features feel repetitive, some feel cohesive. I feel Tobacco Road is in the later category.

Perhaps the fun factor simply blinds me to to Tobacco's imperfections. Ditto Black Mesa.

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle / Sean:

I don't like any green set-up where you have to make a carry to a shallow target, where if you can't stop the ball it will bounce through into real trouble.  There are lots of players who just can't hit that shot.  I realize that most golfers CAN hit the shot, and I don't have any hard-and-fast NEVER rules in my design work, but I try to avoid that type because I believe it is much less than ideal.

There is always somebody who's got to hit their approach with a 4-wood, and they ought to have some play that could work if they timed it just right.

[Kyle Henderson]

Kyle / Sean:

I don't like any green set-up where you have to make a carry to a shallow target, where if you can't stop the ball it will bounce through into real trouble.  There are lots of players who just can't hit that shot.  I realize that most golfers CAN hit the shot, and I don't have any hard-and-fast NEVER rules in my design work, but I try to avoid that type because I believe it is much less than ideal.

There is always somebody who's got to hit their approach with a 4-wood, and they ought to have some play that could work if they timed it just right.

That makes a great deal of pragmatic sense and I don't argue with your basic premise.

My only contention is that there are a lot of obvious exceptions to your "rule," such as the inclusion of a backstop within the green or hillside behind it to stop low trajectory approaches, which TR has in many places. Hitting the approach shot from a moderately elevated position would also help, so long as club selection doesn't become too difficult to judge on such a shallow target.

[Sean_A]

Kyle / Sean:

I don't like any green set-up where you have to make a carry to a shallow target, where if you can't stop the ball it will bounce through into real trouble.  There are lots of players who just can't hit that shot.  I realize that most golfers CAN hit the shot, and I don't have any hard-and-fast NEVER rules in my design work, but I try to avoid that type because I believe it is much less than ideal.

There is always somebody who's got to hit their approach with a 4-wood, and they ought to have some play that could work if they timed it just right.

Tom

Of course you are right, but I don't mind the odd hole where only the right shot will do - afterall, who has ever heard of 18 ideal holes?.  At least in the case of #6 at The Road, the ball isn't lost.  I really believe enough is going on with this hole concerning the width of the tee that I would consider it not only unique, but uniquely great.  

I spose you are not a fan of Pennard's 11th either - another hole which I think is great and more exacting than The Road's 6th.  The bunker is really a non-entity - completely unnecessary, but it does work as a saver from a ball rolling well back down the hill.




Though to be honest, I am not sure this is a modern concept even though this particular hole is a modern.

Ciao

[Dan Moore]

If CBM were to undertake his quest for the ideal golf course today and could only use holes designed since 1960 as his templates, which holes would he use.  

I'll nominate one.  The Island hole 17th at the TPC.

Gag.  

I sure hope not.  17th at TPC is a no options, 100% penal hole.  Isn't that exactly the opposite of what CBM built?  

Jim, I agree the Island hole in quite different from what CBM favored.  Yet isn't it the consumate modern hole?  In fact aren't most modern concepts cited here more penal and less strategic than most of the templates CBM advocated?  

Phil,

I really don't see the 7th at Lawsonia as a Short in the template sense; its too unique.  However, the 3rd at Spring Valley is definitely based on the Short template.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()