Golf Digest Tom Doak Interview

[Matt_Ward]

John K:

Mea culpa on my part / re: Tetherow. Must be having one too many senior moments !

I don't see the 7th at Bandon Trails in the same league with Ballyneal's 2nd. The C&C hole is simply devoid of anything meaningful in regards to natural character -- it is simply an airfield fairway which doesn't do anything of consequence and is one of the worst holes in my mind at BT.  The rolling nature of what you see with Ballyneal's 2nd makes for a visual eyeful.

I agree having big boys go at it is fine -- but don't provide a setting in which nothing is in risk or at play. Then you have a situation in which others who are not as strong are at a distinct disadvantage.

John, thinking before executing should be a prime element for any real solid course -- no doubt that is especially true for the elite great ones.

But, power is not something that everyone can have in their bag. Making sure that such players who have that at their disposal execute at a high level is something that needs to be done otherwise the balance of any design will tilt to their considerable favor.

John, ANGC got it wrong big time. The amateurish nature in which they completely doctored the founding principles of Jones & Mackenzie makes me shake my head with major disappointment given the "progress" they made.

Augusta was meant to provide an offensive game plan for those who had the guts and discipline to pull it off. The course has been turned on its head with max distances and limited rewards for any who might attempt such risky plays. World class players are not fools -- if the odds are considerably below 50-50 on any type of risk / reward situation they will opt for the safer player and proceed along their merry way. That's great for them but a real bore to watch from the fan's perspective. The players themselves have said this a number of times.

John, let me re-emphasize what I said earlier -- strong players view a course in a much different light than many with less skill to launch a ball. They attack things from a far different manner than those who are hitting off the tee at say 250 yards max or thereabouts. In order to prevent them from simply free whacking it with little concern you need to incorporate the element of shot control -- the ability to work the ball to either side of the course in conjunction with their power. Hitting it long and straight is one thing -- getting the ball to move in a desired direction with the added dimension of power is a far different matter. As I said previously, that's one of the reasons why WF is such a demanding course for the low handicap and professional player while still permitting the bogey shooter to proceed with their game intact.

Tiger is a smart player but he knows that his driving is erratic to the max -- he clearly sprays and many courses allow him to get away with such a situation. I can tell you this WF & Westchester didn't give Tiger that same free rein. And the Westchester layout is not some sort of 7,500 yard monster with 8 inch rough to the sides of each and every fairway.

John, I never said no players should NOT benefit from a set-up but you need to raise the stakes for those who do hit the ball with considerable power -- you can do both and if such a player should succeed and overcome what's been presented more power (no pun intended) to him.

You say you don't want to nullify Tiger's advantages - my emphasis is in making sure that courses provide a mechanism which underscores the need for balance. Driving the ball needs to be rewarded -- but it's not just power but shaping shots as called upon. Architecture can do that and there are examples of classic courses that have still held their head up high given today's technological advances.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

It seems pretty clear.  You need to lace up the spikes, quit standing on the sidelines, and get in the game.  Seems your the only one who knows how to build a golf course the right way to suit everyone, everywhere, every shot, all the time.

[Ian_L]

Matt, one more question.  Do you think shots should be more demanding for longer drivers than shorter drivers, or do you think too many hazards have been placed for shorter hitters, giving bombers an easier time? In other words, should there be more hazards (in the loose sense of the word) 300 yards off the tee than 240 yards off the tee?

Your comments about Winged Foot seem to suggest the former, since you're advocating (as I understand it) for a straight shot for shorter hitters, but a more demanding dogleg for big hitters.

[Rob Rigg]

Matt, Tom et al. very interesting dialogue.

Matt - I think you were talking about the 6th at Tetherow - and I agree. Even though John was talking about BT.

It seems like, to Ian's question, you are advocating for a course that possesses several par 4s that challenge the long hitter to work the ball (l or r) while the short hitter can keep it straight in a fairly wide fairway?

The issues with these slight doglegs, as has been eluded to, is that if the rough is not deep or their are not bunkers or other consequences if the dog leg is missed, then the tiger hitter is probably only 100 yards or so from the green.

It would be very interesting to see Tom, C&C or another site favorite design a "US Open" course. From my limited time on the site it seems like these two firms design more "for mass enjoyment and challenge" than to specifically challenge "the long hitting scratch golfer". Since many threads have discussed the vital importance of "building to the clients needs" this is not surprising.

Matt - Based on your obvious passion for building this ultimate layout of sorts it would be interesting to see what you came up with - and I am not saying that tongue in cheek.

Tom - Is "Wicked Pony" your most "challenging" design to date for the longer hitter/scratch player?

Hopefully we all get to see it come to fruition sooner rather than later.

[Tom_Doak]

Rob:

Wicked Pony is/was probably the most demanding course we've worked on.  One of the clients was a very long-hitting former college player, and his intent for the first course was to build something that good players at other clubs in town would want to join.  So, we were trying to build something of the character of Pine Valley, while understanding that if you get off the prepared fairways at Wicked Pony there are some native-sand areas and then it goes to scrub and volcanic rock!  Under those circumstances, our fairways were quite a bit narrower than what we would normally build, but we couldn't build anything you'd really call "narrow," or most people wouldn't finish.

I have no idea what's going on with it, whether they will get the funding back together to finish the course.  To be honest, I'd just about forgotten all about it by now.  But we were trying to incorporate a lot of the ideas I've discussed here. 

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

A few responses to your last post ...

No, I don't think shots should be more demanding for longer driver versus shorter drivers -- there should be some sort of challenge for each to overcome. I don't like the idea that a shorter hitter can get a fairway that's 50-60 yards across and there's nothing but flat open terrain. Something needs to be added -- within their ability level -- to deal with. It doesn't need to be extreme like OB or H20 -- but just to keep the player mentally sharp.

Try to realize this -- not all long hitters are stupid and will simply take out driver and bang away no matter how many hazards or impediments are in their way. They WILL club down if the risk is not worth the reward. The key is to TEMPT them in using the big stick because there is some sort of tangible reward at the end of the tunnel. Good example being the 14th at BT -- although many on this site and elsewhere think the hole is extreme.

When you stand on that elevated tee you just FEEL in your bones that you should give it a pop to see if you can reach the target. No doubt the TEMPTATION is there but the probability of success is a small one -- some say it's too small but I don't view the hole that way. The reason why many others bitch about that hole is that THEY opted to bailout to the right and want to have an EASY approach from that side. That's the price you paid when you opted in not attempting to drive the target. I don't see bailout areas as ones where the hole becomes virtually pedestrian in terms of what it offers.

Ian, WF provides a stern test for those who want to shoot a low number -- let's say for the single digit player. Those attempting to reach the greens in regulation terms had better have a first rate driving and approach game in order to accomplish that aspect. That doesn't include the short game and putter when they finally reach the holy grail.

The higher handicap player likely will not reach the greens in regulation but can still proceed with their game -- in sum, they will likely only reach the long par-4's with their 3rd shot -- if they can manage and execute their games accordingly. Therefore, these players will be able to get the bogey per hole and escape major damage. The better player needs to overcome very tough targets to hit -- from beyond 200 yards --  the pear-shaped targets at WF are quite demanding and will only accept the finest of shots, as per Tillie's intentions.

Ian, please don't misunderstand me -- I'm not suggesting each hole be a dog-leg in the strictest sense of the word -- those that are 45 degrees or more. It would be helpful if holes did move in some sort of direction -- the amount of such movement can be slight but still require the player who hits the ball a long ways to have the wherewithal to work the ball to the place for the optimum payoff.

I also understand that movement of holes should have some clear penalty for missing if you err too far. I like what Tom D added about Wicked Pony because should you fail too far there you will encounter scrub and volcanic rock to contend with and the likelihood of success from such areas is no better than 50/50. 

Kalen:

Forgive me if that is the impression.

I'm only a sidelines guy - I just hope the professionals in the business can take the comments and use them if they find them helpful.

Nothing more - nothing less.

Tom D:

I had the pleasure in touring Wicked Pony with one of the key principles during my time in the Bend area this past summer -- I like what I saw. There's room for the big tee shot but to get to a few of the more desired landing areas you really need to earn it. Be curious to see when the place is able to open -- possibly in '09 ?

Rob:

Mea culpa -- yes, I was referring to the 6th at Tetherow -- a superb par-4 with an array of different challenges -- many of them placed quite rightly on the stronger player who had best execute to a high level on all shots.

Rob, architects can place a variety of natural obstacles that will severely penalize players who get too aggressive -- I mentioned previously how Bethpage Black used to be more rough-like in its overall appearance. I like the natural look in which it's possible that when you miss in taking such a bold liberty you may not have a shot or you may have shot that is less than optimum.

Your basic assumption regarding Doak, C&C, et al of this type is to provide a fun course that is testing for the basic membership types. They've done that well in a number of clear instances -- my only other issue is to see if these same architects can break away from the same "type" of course and provide a bit more from the design differentiation perspective. However, there's nothing wrong in being a one trick pony if you happen to be the best at that sort of thing.

Rob, my passion is in playing a wide variety of courses -- I only opined on the Doak interview because of Tom's desire to do something a bit differently when the future client and circumstance arises. I can only hope that in some of these discussion there is a desire to move beyond what people have designed previously.

[Garland Bayley]

...I think that being a good driver of the ball has become much too easy nowadays, due to the equipment.  In the days of Norman or Nicklaus it was different, but today everyone on Tour hits the driver long, and they hit it straight, too.  So apparently it's not such a hard skill to master ... especially when you put the ball on a peg and have a flat stance. ...

That should be "much too easy nowadays, due to the" ball. Of course it is a hard skill to master with a high spin ball. Does not necessarily have anything to do with tee and stance.

The USGA Tech Center explains part of that as follows

...I'm told by the Tech Center that a trajectory like that compared to the old trajectory might gain a high swing speed player app 25-30 yards more carry distance compared to the old high spin rate balls hit at the same swing speed.

That should give you some idea why there has been a distance spike, amongst high swing speed players in app the last decade. ...

It is the upward curvature of the ball due to backspin that shortens the carry. Now, enhance side spin to an equal degree, and their 100% all out swing misses will put them farther from the hole, because in some instances the ball will curve away from the hole, because the ball will not be fighting gravity to curve upwards, but making a continuously larger sideways curve.

[Jim Sweeney]

TD:

Have you had any thought of going back and retrofitting any of your designs with the additonal cjhallenge to the tee shot in mind? If so (or if not, for that matter), which of your original courses do you thinkk would be good candidates for an "adjustment" of that kind?

[Ian_L]

Thanks for your replies, Matt.  I think you've brought up some great points in this thread.

The key is to TEMPT them in using the big stick because there is some sort of tangible reward at the end of the tunnel. Good example being the 14th at BT -- although many on this site and elsewhere think the hole is extreme.

When you stand on that elevated tee you just FEEL in your bones that you should give it a pop to see if you can reach the target. No doubt the TEMPTATION is there but the probability of success is a small one -- some say it's too small but I don't view the hole that way. The reason why many others bitch about that hole is that THEY opted to bailout to the right and want to have an EASY approach from that side. That's the price you paid when you opted in not attempting to drive the target. I don't see bailout areas as ones where the hole becomes virtually pedestrian in terms of what it offers.

Interesting.  I've only played the hole once, and I thought it had the potential to be a great hole.  What I didn't like was actually the opposite of what you described as the common complaint.

In my only play, I tried to hit a 3-wood up the left but got under it and pushed it weakly to the right, leaving me about 100 yards to the green.  Fearing the right-hand bunkers and the tiny green (middle pin that day), I opted to intentionally miss the green left and give myself a good chance at an up-and-down.  Problem was, I didn't realize how touchy that chip was.  I only had a few yards to work with to avoid having the ball either roll over the green into the bunker or come right back to my feet.  In fact, if my chip hadn't hit the flagstick, it very well might have rolled into the right bunker.  This meant there was really no place to leave a safe shot at my skill level, negating some great potential strategy of the hole.  I would have liked to see the green tilted more right-to-left.  This would make the shot from the right side of the fairway even tougher, which I'm just fine with, while giving the average player a good chance at getting his chip from the left side onto the green.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim S: 

I almost never spend time thinking about what to do differently on one of our older courses, unless somebody brings up something as an issue / problem.  I do not recall ever having a client come back to us after the fact and tell us the course is too easy ... several have been bothered that the slope rating was so low, it was because they thought the course played much tougher than the slope rating indicated.  That's the annoying side of Matt's repeated comments ... I understand his opinion, but he is voicing the opinion of 0.5% of golfers who are not the real clientele, and who believe that challenging them is more important in the big picture than it really is.

You could make a lot of our courses plenty challenging for driving the ball if you just narrowed the fairways along the same lines.  Making it more interesting would involve ANGLING the fairways a bit, and that would require changing the irrigation placement, which wouldn't be so easy until they are getting ready to put in new irrigation.  It'll be about ten more years before my first courses start needing new irrigation systems, so maybe then I will revisit the issue.

[Bart Bradley]

Jim S: 



You could make a lot of our courses plenty challenging for driving the ball if you just narrowed the fairways along the same lines.  Making it more interesting would involve ANGLING the fairways a bit, and that would require changing the irrigation placement, which wouldn't be so easy until they are getting ready to put in new irrigation.  It'll be about ten more years before my first courses start needing new irrigation systems, so maybe then I will revisit the issue.

Tom:

Please don't change a thing; don't revisit it...You are building golf courses mostly for guys like me.  I don't need them to be any narrower or more angled to find them challenging and fun and interesting.

I can tell you quite frankly that as I stood on the 2nd tee at Ballyneal, I sure wasn't thinking about how to make the drive more difficult.  Ballyneal is a great, great golf course...just the way it is.

Bart Bradley

[Bart Bradley]

Oh...and to make driving more difficult, just continue to build most of your golf courses on windy sites..

Bart

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

The 14th at BT is really a fascinating hole -- it allows for the bold play but it doesn't concede an easy approach for those who opt for the bailout -- usually to the right side of the hole.

I can understand your frustration but it's less of the issue with the hole -- and more of the need for the player to improvise as called upon. No doubt there may be times when the skill level of the player in question may not be up to the task that's in front of him / her.

Ian, you opted to move the ball to the left with your approach. You erred in thinking that that location would provide a safer up'n play for par. If you understood the nature of the way the green moves - it's likely you would have played your approach shot differently. The architect suckered you into believing that the more "open" left side was easier. It is not. The same thing holds true for the longer hitter who is TEMPTED to go at the green and believes that missing left will be the better play. Again, it is not. What many players don't realize is that often time smart architects will bait you into thinking one direction has a "safer" result when the reality will provide otherwise unless one's skill level is more than up to the task to overcome such issues as greens falling away and the like.

Ian, the right side is the bailout area and the green tilting for that approach from that position is entirely a call made by the architects C&C. I think it's a smart call on their part because generally speaking most players will opt to go in that direction but are still left with a very demanding approach -- as they should be since it is they who opted to avoid any situation on the left side of the hole.

People sometimes think the bailout area should provide maximum security from tough obstacles. It does not -- nor should it. What a bailout area does provide is to give players another alternate from the more demanding issues they seek to avoid -- yet, at the same time, still provide a shot execution that is far from automatic / pedestrian by any means.

Gents:

It's important to point out that my responses on this thread were geared to what Tom Doak mentioned he is contemplating doing with some of his future work. If that should happen it will be interesting to observe.

That doesn't mean to suggest that a few of his past designs are less than optimum. My comments on the 2nd hole at Ballyneal were limited to one particular aspect -- trying to provide one more mental / physical element for the better / longer player to consider. The hole is still a challenge as is.

Tom D:

When you say you comments are "annoying" try to realize I am pointing out an element you have heard from other quarters. I salute you in designing courses that play to the needs of the people who hired you and the number of people who fall within that handicap range. I never opined they were weak and frankly I have saluted a few of them for going far beyond what others previously have done -- the cumulative nature of the par-4 holes at Rock Creek, to cite one recent example.

If you find my comments "annoying" it's that I would like to see a future Doak course include a dimension that would really be a test for the better player - while not sacrificing your original intent. Your own comments in CG in regards to Shinnecock Hills is my primary reason for suggesting such a future direction in your design plans.

I fully comprehend what "the big picture ... is" -- the idea that low handicap types are merely throwing forward self-serving needs is far from true. I have played a fair share of your works and I see the dimension of trying to keep playability while at the same time adding an element for the more skilled player to overcome -- particularly in the driving zone area. Narrowing fairways to the extreme is not an answer and it likely hurts the higher handicap types more so than others.

No doubt the specific prospective client and how that can be incorporated into their overall needs will likely be a key component for any possible implementation. Let me conclude by saying that I have never met / heard an architect who didn't believe their finished work was really solid. Clearly, it sometimes take another eyes to provide their own thoughts. That doesn't mean such comments are correct -- but merely an additional thought(s) to consider.

[Lyne Morrison]

Interesting discussion -- thank you all.

Cheers -- L

[Mike Wagner]

Matt,

Have you played Pacific from the tips?  The REAL tips? 

[Ian_L]

Ian:

The 14th at BT is really a fascinating hole -- it allows for the bold play but it doesn't concede an easy approach for those who opt for the bailout -- usually to the right side of the hole.

I can understand your frustration but it's less of the issue with the hole -- and more of the need for the player to improvise as called upon. No doubt there may be times when the skill level of the player in question may not be up to the task that's in front of him / her.

Ian, you opted to move the ball to the left with your approach. You erred in thinking that that location would provide a safer up'n play for par. If you understood the nature of the way the green moves - it's likely you would have played your approach shot differently. The architect suckered you into believing that the more "open" left side was easier. It is not. The same thing holds true for the longer hitter who is TEMPTED to go at the green and believes that missing left will be the better play. Again, it is not. What many players don't realize is that often time smart architects will bait you into thinking one direction has a "safer" result when the reality will provide otherwise unless one's skill level is more than up to the task to overcome such issues as greens falling away and the like.

Ian, the right side is the bailout area and the green tilting for that approach from that position is entirely a call made by the architects C&C. I think it's a smart call on their part because generally speaking most players will opt to go in that direction but are still left with a very demanding approach -- as they should be since it is they who opted to avoid any situation on the left side of the hole.

People sometimes think the bailout area should provide maximum security from tough obstacles. It does not -- nor should it. What a bailout area does provide is to give players another alternate from the more demanding issues they seek to avoid -- yet, at the same time, still provide a shot execution that is far from automatic / pedestrian by any means.

Matt, I definitely agree that it is a fascinating hole.  After thinking about it, it's not the difficulty of the recovery shot that bothers me, it's the possibility of going back and forth over the green for several shots.  There is really no place for the average player to simply plop one on the green and try to 2-putt for bogey.  This is the only reason I like #6 at Pacific Dunes better.  From over the back of the green, I know I have to hit a good shot to get it up on the putting surface, a mishit won't do.  BUT, I know that the slope of the green and a bit of buffer behind means only a terrible shot will end up in the front bunker. 

I don't mind having a very difficult recovery shot after taking the wimpy way out.  What I do mind is playing back and forth from one side of the green to the other simply due to lack of skill rather than a bad thought process.  I'm sure many golfers have hit across the green a few times before picking up on #14.  Long rough above the right bunkers on the hole would solve the problem in my eyes, although it might look out of place with the rest of the course.

Does this clear up my point?

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

Suffice to say -- the 14th at BT doesn't give free passes to those who bailout. Sometimes those who seek the bailout option want to have a relatively challenge-free situation. I don't doubt that having a back board on a green or allowing the rough to grow high around the bunker can provide some comfort when taking on the hole.

I can understand what you say -- but missing your approach to the left doesn't provide for an easy up'n down situation for par. The margin for error on the hole is quite small but when you factor in the total overall distance -- from an elevated tee no less -- and the fact that most, if not all players, will be hitting a very, very short iron into the target I don't think it's a stretch for the architect to put considerable pressure on one's accuracy and shot trajectory when playing it.

Mike W:

In my last visit to Pac Dunes I was aware of the "special" tees but only could play from a few of them. I saw where the "special" tee is on #1 although the likelihood of people playing from that spot is highly unlikely.

Ditto the position of the tees one could play on #4 -- especially on the lower right side. I also played the one on the 8th which stretched the hole from roughly 400 to 430 yards. I remember playing a few tee shot from different positions on #13 -- especially to the far right which added on some distance and made the angle on the hole more demanding with ocean now in line with any slight pull -- the one advantage is that the bunker complex on the right was less of a factor.

I played the last hole from the 660 yard marks. No doubt with the prevailing summer wind helping from the north it can possibly be reached in two blows by the longest of hitters. I can only imagine when the wind switches in the winter time and you can get a fierce headwin from the south.

There may be others I missed.

In regards to the "real" tips -- the issue becomes one of are such tees really calculated into the daily set-up of the course. Or are they merely conversation pieces used for thrill seekers and little else. I can remember Industry Hills in Industry, CA with its Ike course posting distances from tip tee distances but such tees were not used for daily play. Pac doesn't post the tip tee distance so if they aren't really used on a steady basis then I don't see them as being a part of the actual course itself. Maybe others feel differently.

[Rob Rigg]

Matt,

For context - Can you provide some of your distances - eg) Driver, 3W from fairway, what you hit from 200 & 150 on a calm day.

This has been a great dialogue, but I want to make sure I understand where you are coming from in terms of skilzzz.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike W:

When I was out on Pacific Dunes last month I noticed some of the alternate back tees are pretty much grown over -- on #1 and #11 anyway.  The right-hand tees on #15 are also blocked by gorse; that was a cool angle to the hole but it was a long walk to get up there, so they were never used much.

There is still our Tiger tee on #4 up by the snack bar, but nobody ever plays that one ... I think anybody who notices it thinks it's for #13.

[Matt_Ward]

Rob:

On a calm day / sea level my total carry and runout with a driver can exceed 300 yards. As an FYI -- I use a 5.5 degree loft 47-inch Bang Storm Driver with a XXX ETA Pavlet Shaft via Penley.

The 3-metal (13 degrees) can range anywhere from 260-290 depending upon the firmness of the turf.

200 yds = 6 iron
150 yds = PW or 9 iron

[Garland Bayley]

A 5.5 degree driver is best used when playing airport runways. Where is it you say you play golf?

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

Take a quick right when going through the concourse at JFK -- I'll be on the far right runway warming up !

By the way -- for what it's worth people should check out the drivers put out by Bang Golf -- easily among the best you can buy in the market today.

[Rob Rigg]

Matt,

Thanks for the response, that is a pretty big ball and that type of distance changes the game big time - which I am learning on Tiger Woods Wii golf!

Seriously, its crazy how much easier the game is on St Andrews, Pebble, Wolf Creek, Sawgrass, etc. when you can really smash the ball. Westchester is one of the few courses in the game that really makes you think of the tee, Victoria National is another because the greens are so tough.

Obviously your driver is pretty dialed in which is interesting - I think I may actually take the time to get my swing speed, etc. etc. done this year so I match the right shaft, supposedly it makes a difference.

You are a big longer than me  but sometimes I can get it out there pretty big, just not consistently, which is the big thing when talking about figuring out how much to bite off on a strategic driving hole.

If you can hit it 300 and actually place the ball where you want to on a regular basis - it is going to be really tough for an archie to build a hole that can reign you in. As you have mentioned, it seems like the best defense is a dogleg that can turn long into wrong pretty quick.

[Matthew Hunt]

Matt:

I understand the difficulty for good players of a curved or angled fairway -- the most striking part of watching the boys at Cape Kidnappers was how straight they hit it -- and I've tried to incorporate more of that into our work the past 2-3 years.  I'll counter it with a hole like the 13th at Ballyneal, where the fairway is huge but there are bunkers out there at a certain distance which make you think.

Tom, I once said on here that fairways angled to the tee were an under-utilized architectural strategy. I believe that you the said that their strategic appeal is overrated especially for the better golfer. With your now ‘refined’ tee-shot philosophy has this opinion changed?

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew:

The part I said was overrated was the part I was talking about before regarding Pete Dye's views on angles ... if the fairway is angled at 30 or 45 degrees, a good player can easily pick a safe line and give himself room to miss.  (On the other hand, if you make a 30-yard wide fairway at a 45-degree angle, it's pretty much impossible for a drive to land in the fairway and stop before it goes into the rough, in firm and fast conditions:  see Royal Birkdale 2008.)

Mr. Dye's angles were always shallower, with the fairway coming from 10-20 degrees off the angle from the tee, so it's difficult to pick out a "carry" point and impossible to pick a safe "hedge" point from there without going into the rough on the far side.  I'm just trying to do the same thing without water and waste bunkers ... in fact we are trying to hide the edges of the fairway so it's impossible to pick out a carry point at all.

That said, too much of anything becomes repetitive, the ideal is to have holes of all types.