[Norbert P]

  I am fascinated by the Redan Hole of North Berwick and its perpetually constructed facsimiles.   Though I have always been averse to other popular venues, especially music and literature,  I never tire of another Redan effort.       A few questions . . .

1.  What makes it so popular for designers, yet virtually unknown to most of the golfers in America? 

 2.  Is it really the most popular hole design built today? 
  ( seems I've seen more roundish greens with bunkers at 7 o'clock - 4 o'clock positions, though unmemorable, they are out there in droves.)

 3. What's the use of a fast and firm Redan if so few understand it or willfully shape the ball anymore?

[RJ_Daley]

I'm not too sure Slag, but I think bite-off par 4s with cape greens (even if it is a cape jutting out into sand, waste or a series of sand or green bunkers) is also a popular theme. 

But, as you say, many golfers don't really think of the concept of the Redan theme- or never heard of it- when they are hitting to the front to back offset green, with the deeper bunker at 7  O'clock front left and over the kickplate back right at 2-3O'clock.  (or the reverse on the Nader) 

And, the theme is carried quite often to the approach shots of par 4s, as well.  It might be more to do with basic strategy or default mindset of the designer than just conciously emmulating the Redan per se. 

The usefullness of shaping the ball may be getting lost more to the ball designers de-emphasising the shapeability characteristics, I don't know for sure.  But, that still leaves firm maintenance conditions of the ideal Redan to allow a well struck straightish shot to land a wee short and take the kickplate roll whether Redan or Nader. 

The real futility is if the green is pudding...

[Adrian_Stiff]

I not conviced the Redan is popular with the masses. Most golfers dont think enough and see a green falling away as bad. I think only to the educated few it has its place and it certainly seems to work best as a short hole. I tried it at one course 15th Kendleshire and its the most unpopular green with the members and I would never be suprised if they rebuilt it. In fairness I think I made a mistake as the site is very downhill leading into the green they just dont like the idea or running the ball in.

[C. Squier]

I don't think most people would know a redan if it slapped them in the face. 

I'll also disagree with Adrian, if I may, about it working best on a short hole.  I think the opposite.  With most golfers, a short redan simply means launching their short iron as high in the air as possible and making a B-line to the hole.  If its a longer hole, you at least have the opportunity for people to consider using the slope/grade to their advantage and using a little ground game.  I think 190-210 is a great distance for one.  Very few golfers at that length can hit an iron high enough where they can just point and shoot, and most golfers have enough length to reach the green by using the redan's features with a long iron/hybrid/fairway wood.  The more you expose those features, the more likely people will respond to their virtues.  But if they're hitting short irons to a falling away green and watch them bounce off, they'll never understand the hole. 

CPS

[Garland Bayley]

As far as copying a hole design and getting it recognized is concerned. I suspect copies of the 18th at PB (with standins for the ocean) may be the most recognized copy.

As far as shaping a shot into a Redan, I think I have just the shot as you may have noticed me dunking it into the ponds last Wed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Slag -

I think the difference between a casual golfer and a serious student of golf course archiecture is actually quite small, and has more to do with the latter having a language and an historical perspective that the former doesn't.  And I think the Redan may be one of the best examples of this, e.g. I was intrigued and taken aback and challenged and liked the one redan hole I'd played long before I found this site and learned that it was called a "Redan", and before I began to understand what that meant (design-wise) and where it came from (historically).  It LOOKS like a good golf hole the first time anyone sees it, and it PLAYS like a good golf hole every single time, for most every player.

In other words, I think a great concept requires no explanation, but allows for endless discussion.

Peter       

[Bill_McBride]

Slag -

I think the difference between a casual golfer and a serious student of golf course archiecture is actually quite small, and has more to do with the latter having a language and an historical perspective that the former doesn't.  And I think the Redan may be one of the best examples of this, e.g. I was intrigued and taken aback and challenged and liked the one redan hole I'd played long before I found this site and learned that it was called a "Redan", and before I began to understand what that meant (design-wise) and where it came from (historically).  It LOOKS like a good golf hole the first time anyone sees it, and it PLAYS like a good golf hole every single time, for most every player.

In other words, I think a great concept requires no explanation, but allows for endless discussion.

Peter       

I dunno, Peter.  I had studied the Redan at North Berwick in a couple of books before my first visit in person, and had never played a true Redan in the U.S.  If I hadn't been familiar with the design quirks of the North Berwick hole, I don't think I would even recognized it as a par 3 if the pin was at the back and out of sight.  How to play it, what kind of shot to attempt, those concepts would have been alien that first go.

As it was I knocked a long iron out to the right and somehow made a bogey..and I sort of knew what to do when i got there!  Imagine if this is the first thing you see and you don't know anything about the hole.....what to do?



I guess that's what I love so much about the hole, it's just completely outside our normal golf experience here in the USA!

[Peter Pallotta]

Bill -

I imagine you're absolutely right about North Berwick's Redan (I say "imagine" only because I've never played it). What I was referring to is a copy I played once, before I knew what I was playing.  The green was elevated a little, at about a 45 degree angle to the tee and with a little slope front to back, and with a big bunker fronting the right side. (I guess maybe it was a reverse redan, since the green was on a left to right angle/diagonal).  And I knew right away we were playing something different, and so did my playing partners. Wow - you could see the decisions: do you try to play a low fade and run it through the opening; do you play a high shot at the pin (but gee the green looked narrow in that direction) etc. etc. Again, I don't know how close it plays to the original, or even how good a copy it is, but when I first read a description of a Redan, I thought of that hole right away. It just said "good golf hole". ..And, looking at the picture you posted, maybe that's as close to a true Redan I ever want to get

Peter

[Bill_McBride]

Peter, check out the other Redan thread, the one posted by Martin Bonnar that has that photo.  It's on page 2 now.  There are several other photos to give you the 360* look.  It is truly unique and I've never played another Redan that is as obscure from the tee.

The cool thing is all the ways you can play it.  The third time around was with my wife and another couple.  I hit a very solid 6 iron to the very front right of the green and the ball ran down to about 15'.  My wife hit a very solid spoon that threaded the needle between those front smaller bunkers and ran onto the green, to about 14'!   

It's a rare and great hole that can be played in two such different ways at the same time!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()