Through the green vs. The greens

[Matthew Essig]

I have two questions, but I'll start with only one.

I was thinking about what Mike Keiser said about play at Bandon-that people preferred Old Mac because it was fun over Trails because the finish is hard. On my recent trip last week to Bandon, Trails was the course I chose not to play (I guess that makes me typical). This got me thinking ... If a hole is too challenging through the green, is it the architect's responsibility to design a simpler green? And vice versa. If a hole is simple or lacking of significant challenge through the green, is it a requirement to make the green challenging.

Please give an example to help illustrate your opinion.

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew:

It's best not to rely on simple formulas like that.  You are trying to create variety and interest in the course as a whole.  Over 18 holes, you can have a couple that are tough from tee to green AND have a tough green.  There are many great examples:  the 17th at St. Andrews, the 1st or 18th at Winged Foot (West), et al.  But you don't want to keep doing that hole after hole, either.  You want to have a liberal mix of hard holes with easier greens and easier holes with hard greens.  And, the old courses generally had a hole or two which was pretty easy on both ends -- though in today's world these are criticized as "weak" holes, but it's still the overall balance of the course which matters most.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I am aware that in the days of Old Tom it was fairly common place to incorporate a rest Hole, which I suppose is defined as an easier Hole to day. Yet I feel the intention was not a rest or easy Hole but an alternative thought process to offer the golfer some diversity in not just his mind game but also to the physical approach to the Green.

My understanding is that the Golden Age Designers (that is the second Golden Age Designers),did away with many of these Holes during their re-design of the old courses, not fully understanding the actual design process that really went on in the 19th Centuries (I suppose we can forgive some as clubs had modified some Holes with the removal and displacement of some hazards in the intervening years).  This can be gleamed by the comments of most of the second Golden Age guys when referring to their predecessors, alas through their arrogance they misunderstood the design process that created some of the best Holes ever to have been designed, many of which are still in place and have been copied worldwide.

We must remember that today the amount of distraction prior to, during and after a round far exceeds that of the 19th Century when the game was very much a thinking man’s game. This is applicable to all golfers, with or without caddies, as again we forget that distance and general advice from caddies was very, very limited. It was not the place of a caddie to address a Gentleman and many were there just to carry clubs and nothing more. While many a links course will define the easy or rest Hole, it will fast convert into playing a different strategy once the weather condition change, offering up the test which many use to say was ‘as good as a rest’.

Golf is a thinking game, done much harm by verbal aids, be it via caddies, distance books or electronic aids. Designers seem unable or are no longer given the freedom to design golf courses as the demand seems to be for ‘Championship Style’ courses, a sort of ‘Designer Label’ selling point to those who think they are in the know, like moths to light, yet blinded from what is really out there.

There is more to golf than achieving distance or seeking outside help. That which matters comes from within. It applies to designing courses as much as a golfer playing the game of golf.

So is it easy or a rest Hole, there to aid nay encourage your thinking process as you navigate around the golf course?

Melvyn

[Garland Bayley]

I say shame on them for easing the holes for the benefit of low handicappers. To high handicappers like me it makes no difference, because we can take a big number on the easiest of holes. As long as there are not ponds to catch stray balls from the high handicapper, nor too many penal bunkers to penalize our mishaps, the hole is good.

Personally I think the only reason Trails is on the bottom of the play list is because it is not ocean side. I can go walk next to the ocean all I want for free right next door at the state park. So there is no need for me to play the three ocean side courses for the opportunity to get ocean side.

[Matthew Essig]

Doak (or any other architect who wants to chime in to what I'm asking Doak)--

When I was at the opening of Rope Rider at Suncadia, Jim Hardy and Peter Jacobsen (architects) were describing the concept of the "half holes" -- a hole that plays easier or harder than its par. I think I have heard this concept on the site. In addition, they are trying to have a mix of "par holes," "half a stroke under its par holes," and "half a stroke over par holes." Do you consciously think about such a theory when designing? And if you do, when you you design a "half a stroke under its par" hole, do you make the tee to green easier, the green easier, or both. And vice versa. When designing a "half a stroke over its par" hole, do you make the tee to green harder, the green harder, or both. If you are going to say you design holes with all three options, which I'm fairly sure you are going to say, what would you do in most cases.

Everybody else--  Are you disappointed to play the "2.5, 3.5, or 4.5" (mentioned above) or relieved to play it because as Doak mentioned, many people do not like "weak" holes.

[Matthew Essig]

I guess I'll post the other question now since nobody has responded to the first two.

In your opinion, which course is better: one that has a terrible set of greens but is amazing and unbelievable tee to green or one that has one of the best set of greens in the world but terrible tee to green?

Please respond to any or all three of the questions posted.

[Tom_Doak]

Doak (or any other architect who wants to chime in to what I'm asking Doak)--

When I was at the opening of Rope Rider at Suncadia, Jim Hardy and Peter Jacobsen (architects) were describing the concept of the "half holes" -- a hole that plays easier or harder than its par. I think I have heard this concept on the site. In addition, they are trying to have a mix of "par holes," "half a stroke under its par holes," and "half a stroke over par holes." Do you consciously think about such a theory when designing? And if you do, when you you design a "half a stroke under its par" hole, do you make the tee to green easier, the green easier, or both. And vice versa. When designing a "half a stroke over its par" hole, do you make the tee to green harder, the green harder, or both. If you are going to say you design holes with all three options, which I'm fairly sure you are going to say, what would you do in most cases.

Everybody else--  Are you disappointed to play the "2.5, 3.5, or 4.5" (mentioned above) or relieved to play it because as Doak mentioned, many people do not like "weak" holes.

Matthew:  We're on a first name basis here.

I rarely build a dull green.  On shorter par-4's, you need an interesting green so that the hole is not a pushover ... so that the good player can occasionally screw it up.  This prevents people from dismissing a hole as "weak," you never hear that about #4 or #12 at Barnbougle, even though they each weigh in at under 300 yards. 

On longer par-4's, I've never been afraid to think of them as par 4-1/2 holes and build a difficult green that makes it hard for people to get up and down to save par ... because that's one of the features I noticed on the great links overseas, not to mention in a lot of Dr. MacKenzie's work.

As to your last question:  either course would be crap, but you will rarely see either type in the real world.  Someone who knows how to build a great set of greens is not going to build a course that's terrible from tee to green.

[Matthew Essig]

Doak (or any other architect who wants to chime in to what I'm asking Doak)--

When I was at the opening of Rope Rider at Suncadia, Jim Hardy and Peter Jacobsen (architects) were describing the concept of the "half holes" -- a hole that plays easier or harder than its par. I think I have heard this concept on the site. In addition, they are trying to have a mix of "par holes," "half a stroke under its par holes," and "half a stroke over par holes." Do you consciously think about such a theory when designing? And if you do, when you you design a "half a stroke under its par" hole, do you make the tee to green easier, the green easier, or both. And vice versa. When designing a "half a stroke over its par" hole, do you make the tee to green harder, the green harder, or both. If you are going to say you design holes with all three options, which I'm fairly sure you are going to say, what would you do in most cases.

Everybody else--  Are you disappointed to play the "2.5, 3.5, or 4.5" (mentioned above) or relieved to play it because as Doak mentioned, many people do not like "weak" holes.

Matthew:  We're on a first name basis here.

I rarely build a dull green.On shorter par-4's, you need an interesting green so that the hole is not a pushover ... so that the good player can occasionally screw it up.  This prevents people from dismissing a hole as "weak," you never hear that about #4 or #12 at Barnbougle, even though they each weigh in at under 300 yards. 

On longer par-4's, I've never been afraid to think of them as par 4-1/2 holes and build a difficult green that makes it hard for people to get up and down to save par ... because that's one of the features I noticed on the great links overseas, not to mention in a lot of Dr. MacKenzie's work.

As to your last question:  either course would be crap, but you will rarely see either type in the real world.  Someone who knows how to build a great set of greens is not going to build a course that's terrible from tee to green.

I know that we are on a first name basis... I don't know why I said Doak... Sorry Tom...

I understand they would both be crap. And never have I thought you have made a dull green. The main point of my questions is I'm wondering if people think tee to green is more important or if the greens are more important.

[Andy Troeger]

I think the point Tom makes is that it at some level it has to be both because of the necessary integration between a green and the rest of the hole.

I think the test of this comes with courses that are on pretty unremarkable land but are known to have interesting greens. Perhaps Pinehurst #2 was an example of this before the recent work made the tee-to-green portion more interesting. It seemed before that the course had fans who thought it was already excellent but many others who "didn't get it." Seems like now that its more universally praised, at least by GCA'ers.

Talking Stick North might be another example. Other than a couple holes, I don't find the tee-to-green stuff to be interesting, but the greens are well done. I'm not a big fan--I prefer something with more interest throughout. Others love it.

I'm trying to think of a good example of a course with an imaginative routing but dull greens. I'm sure someone will come up with a good candidate, but I can't think of anything.

[Tom_Doak]

I think the point Tom makes is that it at some level it has to be both because of the necessary integration between a green and the rest of the hole.

I think the test of this comes with courses that are on pretty unremarkable land but are known to have interesting greens. Perhaps Pinehurst #2 was an example of this before the recent work made the tee-to-green portion more interesting. It seemed before that the course had fans who thought it was already excellent but many others who "didn't get it." Seems like now that its more universally praised, at least by GCA'ers.

Talking Stick North might be another example. Other than a couple holes, I don't find the tee-to-green stuff to be interesting, but the greens are well done. I'm not a big fan--I prefer something with more interest throughout. Others love it.

I'm trying to think of a good example of a course with an imaginative routing but dull greens. I'm sure someone will come up with a good candidate, but I can't think of anything.

I'm not sure about "imaginative routings," but both Woodhall Spa and Royal County Down have been thought of as great courses with relatively dull greens.

[Michael Essig]

Hello Tom, I am the other half - Matthew's dad.  These questions are the result of Matt's and my recent visit to Bandon, and my upcoming trip to RCD and a few others in Ireland, and 8 hours in the car to talk about his golf experience playing Bandon, Pacific and OM.  In addition, he walked all of Preserve and started talking with an Englishman also out on Preserve for a tour, and which courses he liked at Bandon and why.  (The non-scientific pole of two had it OM, Pacific, Bandon).

This is a big generalization, but I often think of the courses in the Open rota and the few courses I have played in Scotland as having rather simple, rather flat, not particularly difficult greens, but sometimes being brutally difficult through the green - 18th at Carnoustie - comes to mind. 

Matt and I started discussing the issue of when a hole is made too hard because you give no relief to the player either from tee to green or on the green, and when a challenge becomes simply not any fun. 

In my mind, golf should be a test, but one that you can "pass" with reasonable thought and skill.  But I have played holes that I think are nearly impossible for the average golfer to ever make a par on because of its design.  I carry an 8 handicap, so when my two best can’t make par, I start thinking not only about what I could have done differently, but also about the poor golfer (including Matt and my wife) who can’t drive it 280 yards (or 300+ downwind). 

So, it got us thinking and talking, “If an architect wanted to add interest, would you choose to do it on the green, or through the green.”  I think you are right, that question assumes that the land is uninteresting through the green, so it necessitates building an interesting green.  But we all know that difficulty can be manufactured with bunkers, water, long rough or width of the fairway relative to the length of the hole.  I don’t want to fall into the trap of equating difficulty with interest.

Using a cape hole as an example.  Often the land is very flat, including the area where the green would be located, but that last shot is basically a forced carry over water – a difficult shot.  Would you choose to keep the green a little flatter to somewhat remove a three putt from the equation because of the difficulty of the last shot, or would you add contour to the green?  Would your answer be different if it was a par 4 versus a par 5, so the last shot was 175+ yards vs. 100 yards?  Would your answer be different if the tee shot was also a forced carry over water?

Using one of your holes to further illuminate our discussion, the road hold on OM.  I remember the hole this way: avg+ difficulty drive, difficult green to hit, relatively flat once on.  As that hole illustrated to me, it was only difficult on the second shot.  That doesn’t mean someone couldn’t have made a double very quickly (I could see that happening if you missed the green), but you didn’t make the drive difficult by placing too many bunker in the fairway, or slide the hole over so the gorse choked the landing area, or make the landing area so tight that the hole would be rated: very difficult drive, difficult second, avg difficulty once on.

Or, in the end, it is always a balancing act – not only on any given hole, but also over the entire course – and that every hole on the course must be viewed with an eye towards its contribution to the course, and cannot be viewed in isolation.

(PS. We both made par on the road hole)