[Doug Bolls]

When I first saw this post, I immediately had a flashback to Prairie Highlands in Olathe, KS.
I remember every hole as almost impossible to score on - very tight all the way, blind shots to God knows where.  I was never sure where the right line was - it just beat me up for four+ solid hours.
So, to me relentless kind of takes on a meaning of increasingly exacting difficulty - just one extremely difficult challange after another - with a flavor of unfairness thrown in.
I am playing Bethpage Black for the first time next month (if I can get on) - while I expect very difficult, even from the correct tees, I am not expecting relentless.

[BCrosby]

Matt -

Crump built a course with enormously wide playing corridors. Fw's as wide as I've ever seen this side of the Pond. Mediocre players have always enjoyed and been quite comfortable playing PVGC. More so than Merion or HVGC I'd wager.  (I don't mean to suggest that PVGC is a pussy cat. It is not.)  

Which is why I think PVGC is less relentless and, for that and other reasons, a better course than the other two.

Bob





  

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Bob is basically right about PV not being particuarly relentless if the play is something above indifferent and mediocre. The fact is the width of PV's fairways does contribute. The other thing many forget about PV is there really is no rough as there is on most every other golf course in the world. Obviously to score decent at PV you can't spray the ball all over the place off the tees and you do need to be sort of on with your approach shots. The "experience" factor in approaching some of those greens can be huge.

Obviously, when they soup up a course with greens like PV's it sure can get relentless on and around those greens. The Crump Cup is most certainly evidence of that.

Bob Crosby is a very good player and he seems to be a very smart one too, and that's a whole lot of what PV tests. I think he's played down there a few times and has had remarkably good rounds for someone not that familiar with the place. Actually that says a lot to me about PV and of course about Bob too.

The other thing about PV is damage control. I don't know that I've ever seen a course where that factor can be so high and the parts of the course where that is really apparent are pretty well known (like #5, #13 and even little #8). PV is famous for its so-called "others" and it's probably extracted more of them, including double digits holes, from more really good players than any other course out there.

Matter of fact, even though I've never really thought of this before, PV just may be the greatest example of any golf course in the world where a player, even including a very good one should consider stroke and distance when he at first strays into certain areas of that course. I've seen the need for that so many times down there over the years even though it wasn't done, and I guess the reason is very, very few golfers, even very good ones, ever really consider something like that on most any course simply because they don't really have to. But at PV in some situations anyone really should.

Here's a great example. Jerry Kling, a good player around here and a member down there putted the ball off the first green and it ran just down to the woods on the right. He played stroke and distance and played his next shot from where he putted it off the green. A brilliant move really and obviously one borne of lots of experience from trying to play the ball from the right of that green.

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

Using that philosophy of Armour's---eg to play a shot that makes the next shot potentially easier---I've always counted up to eight hole at PV, particularly when the course is souped up and is pretty intense, where a smart golfer may want to consider that. I know I always did. If there was any question there was up to eight holes down there I'd intentionally try to come up just short of the putting surface and up to eight times. I know playing really conservative that way goes against the grain of some players but it's something to consider at PV more than any other course I'm aware of, particularly if you're playing individual stroke play.

[Matt_Ward]

Far too often people assume that relentless must be automatically linked to extreme difficulty and hence with that tag is therefore a limited type course -- limited to those of a certain type handicap.

I simpy see relentless as a course that will not tolerate half-ass shots or those played without sound execution and strategic sensibilities. That doesn't mean to say such a course is near impossible but sort of like the breathtaking blonde who will not succumb to your most obvious line.

You need to work for it !

[Andy Troeger]

Butler National does fit the definition of relentless for me. Blackwolf Run River wouldn't even cross my mind as there are a fair amount of holes that give the player a fighting chance (#1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 15 at least). You have to play smart there, but those holes aren't brutally difficult in my mind compared to a lot of other courses.

Played OSU Scarlet over the weekend, relentless might be a good word for that one too post-renovation.

[Matthew Mollica]

I always thought relentless was Mucci with green font and an uphill argument...

MM

[Phil McDade]

Butler National does fit the definition of relentless for me. Blackwolf Run River wouldn't even cross my mind as there are a fair amount of holes that give the player a fighting chance (#1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 15 at least). You have to play smart there, but those holes aren't brutally difficult in my mind compared to a lot of other courses.

Played OSU Scarlet over the weekend, relentless might be a good word for that one too post-renovation.

Andy:

You must play a different game than Paul Thomas and I. I am not terribly fond of the River Course;  although I think it's a wonderful test and well-done, for the most part,  I think for anyone with a double-digit handicap (even playing from the correct tees), the River Course is pretty darn relentless.

[Matt_Ward]

It seems certain people have defined "relentlesss" in terms of overly severe added items such as OB, H20, extreme length, massive bunkers and the like. I didn't mean "relentless" in those terms -- although I can see how people would apply them.

I can see courses devoid of those features which are quite "relentless" in mandating that sound execution and proper strategy are carried forward shot after shot after shot. That's not draconian in its application but rather a testament to the quality of the design that you don't have a few holes that are simply filler and serve as nothing more than clutter to the other holes you play.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

It would seem that you are at direct odds with Tom Doak about this issue.  This from Tom, in the thread on breather holes:

I've said on other threads that I do not enjoy "relentless" architecture.  It's not just that I'm a 10 handicap and I recognize that most people don't enjoy walking up the 18th hole punch-drunk and bloody -- it's that the thing I value most in a golf course is a VARIETY of holes, and if every single hole is "a hard par but an easy bogey", there is not much variety there.

Life is not a series of "tough but fair" challenges, and neither should a golf course be.  There should be some holes where par is a great score -- two-shotters where the stroke average for low-handicappers is more like 4.5 -- and there should also be some holes where a birdie or even an eagle are on offer to the 10-handicapper who hits a couple of excellent shots.  Par fours should have stroke averages from 3.5 right up to 4.5 and everything in between, based not just on their yardage but on differing levels of challenge from tee to green. 

Really taking this philosophy to heart is what allows us to build a golf course that fits the land, instead of trying too hard to modify the land to include certain types of holes.

We don't design in a vacuum, we design on pieces of ground.  A couple of people have asked recently if I deliberately chose to build most of the par-5 holes at Pacific Dunes on the long, flattish plain where holes 3, 12 and 15 are located ... but the truth is just that it was a plain that had to be crossed three times, and that was how far across it was, so we tried to make three differing holes of similar length in that space.  If it had been 400 yards across, we'd just have made three differing par-4's, and tried to find our par-5's somewhere else.

Likewise, where there is occasionally a fairly featureless stretch of ground which has to be crossed in the routing, I may well build a hole which some call a "breather".  I love the fact that good players EXPECT to make birdies on these holes, and because they do so less than 50% of the time, they can be affected psychologically just by making a par -- and particularly if their opponent makes a birdie.  So I may throw in a "weak" hole now and then when the land tells me to ... but it's not because I am deliberately trying to put a "breather" at a certain point in the round.

Comment?

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

On first glance -- what is a "breather hole" for most people? For some it may mean having a hole as wide as Texas and one completely devoid of anything remotely tied to compelling architecture. In sum -- a filler hole meant to lessen the strain from holes played prior and those that will follow. Clearly, if a hole is meant for such a role -- I just would prefer to see one that simply is a good bit more than just a throw-away situated between other more noted / superior holes.

Keep in mind, that when I say superior holes I am not speaking simply in terms of difficulty. I am talking about holes that mandate superior thinking and execution of all different types.

I don't doubt that Tom Doak and other first rate architects try to place holes in places where the land provides for them. They don't "force" anything and clearly the end result speaks for itself in the case of Pacific Dunes -- although I am not a fan of the par-5 holes there. I see them as a means to get from one part of the property to the other. I don't see the architecture as something that is equal to or greater than the others. No doubt the argument will be made that such holes provide the illusion of getting a birdie back (for the better player types although often this is not accomplished) when held against the other holes encountered.

Doak's comments on the aspect of getting good players to think they should make birdies on such a "breather" hole is a good point -- no doubt that does happen.

I concur that variety of the name of the game in design. You want to avoid easy discernible patterns and you want to maximize the fullest range of experiences when playing.

Relentless, just by the sound of the word itself, conveys a pressing quality and I don't see it in such a narrow application. Great courses are relentless in that they don't simply allow for indifferent play or play that is so below the nature of what brought you to that particular golf course in the first place. If an architect creates a "change of pace" hole that's fine. Similar to what great baseball pitchers do -- they can throw the high heat fastball but then mix it up with a breaking ball and off speed pitch too.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Great explanation.

SO... Pacific Dunes can be called relentless.

Because what seem to be breather holes there do demand good execution or they too can trip one up.  They would seem to allow indifferent play... but if one does that, one pays the price - it just happens in a less immediate, more subtle way.

So it's all in the definition.  I'd say the best courses have courses that look like breather holes but are nevertheless rather relentless (as defined herein).

No?

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I agree with much of what you've written in your last post, but I'm not sure relentless is the word I'd use to describe it. Consistent (in terms of quality) would be another word that describes part of the scenerio but not entirely. I'm not sure if I can think of a better word for it, but maybe its out there.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

The word "relentless" often means unyielding -- great golf design doesn't compromise or yield with inferior type holes. I used the baseball pitcher metaphor previously and I stand by that. Great courses are like great pitchers -- they can incorporate a wide array of pitches, speeds and can locate wherever necessary.

Andy, I don't use the term "consistent" because hole quality can be extremely "wide" in terms of originality and degree of intensity. A solid golf course is relentless in itemizing what is good, fair and poor shots from tee to green.

Merion is relentless in identifying those type of shots. So are other top tier layouts. Relentless courses don't simply give away anything -- that can mean a 480-yd par-4 or a skillfulyl designed short par-3 or par-4 as well.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Thats true, but you are saying the holes are consistently of high quality. Neither word really fits without explanation of some sort, but they both serve their purpose (using your definition of relentless, I still would define it differently as per my original response back on page one...but I understand what you're getting at).

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

To answer your question let me say this -- take Pebble Beach for example. There are a number of stellar holes at the course. There are also a number of lesser quality holes -- some might say they are inferior. In the total package -- Pebble Beach still rates very highly. Does it rate as highly as other certain courses that are consistently strong from the 1st tee to the final putt. No, it doesn't -- it least in my mind.

That doesn't mean Pebble Beach is chop liver or far down the totem pole of greatness. It's just not as high as the certain elite courses that I would place above it because they are "relentless" in overall and total hole quality.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()