Sometimes nothing is better ...

[Mike Benham]

No waterfall, no containment mounding, no heavy equipment to shape, maybe nothing more then a rake to build this hole ...

Thoughts?




Note:  Reprinted without permission, it may disappear if I am asked to remove it ...

[Kalen Braley]

Cinnabar Hills?

[Pat Brockwell]

You speak of the "Don't just do something, stand there" school of thought.  It has merit, like mono-tasking.

[Mike Benham]

It has merit, like mono-tasking.

How about non-tasking ... ?

[Garland Bayley]

Ah, yes, the Old Tom Morris school of golf design. It HAS stood the test of time.

[Ronald Montesano]

Absolutely agree.  It's a nice change of pace.  There is a course in western New York called Ironwood that has about 12 of these holes, in all flavors (3s, 4s and 5s).  It was designed by GCA's Scott Witter, built by the farming family that owns the property, and is enjoyed by all who play it, from MOOG employees to local mudders.

[RJ_Daley]

Doesn't it depend on what comes before the green?  What par, yardage, shape of the hole corridor, other decisions to make are found on the hole.   There looks to be a nice internal contour within the green.  It is hard to tell the kind of fall away and firmness factor that may play into the approach shot.  

[Mike Benham]

It is hard to tell the kind of fall away and firmness factor that may play into the approach shot.  

But isn't that the case with every hole you play?

or

And doesn't that "unknown" make the hole more challenging?

[Bill_McBride]

You could certainly play the hole in a variety of ways - and it does look fast and firm, which would make that variety workable.  That's a nice look.  Where?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - I like it a lot. Very peaceful look. And, while I don't often think in these terms, the photo made me think that if a hundred golfers of various handicaps played the hole a hundred times each, the cumulative scores for almost every one of them would be almost exactly what their handicaps would've predicted. And what's wrong with that?

Peter

[mike_beene]

It is like knowing when to shut up when lawyering.

[Ryan Farrow]

Loose the tree and the backdrop and this would be a quiet thread.




It works.... there.

[JESII]

It just looks like golf to me.


Peter,

Are you saying it looks equitable?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - good word. (I should pick up more golf vocabulary from you).  I think so - it looks like the scratch golfer would get a number of birdies and lots of pars; the bogie golfer would get a goodly number of pars and a little less-than-his share of bogies.  I guess that means that the slope rating is low -- which I think makes a round of golf more fun/competitive, i.e.  the scratch golfer still wins, but doesn't blow the bogie golfer out of the water. And if the bogie golfer is playing well, he might even give the scratch a decent game, straight up.

Peter 

[Kirk Gill]

It's lovely. And it looks as if the next tee might be sitting over there on the right just behind that other tree. Nice.

Mainly, to me, it looks old-fashioned. I guess I'd be a little surprised if it was from a recent design.  There's not a lot of ego behind the design of that hole, just the use of the ground and the trees and the backdrop, as Ryan was saying. It might not rank high on the "memorability scale" though, if that is an important criteria to you.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kirk:

I dunno... I'd put that pretty darn high on "memorability"... if only because it is so DIFFERENT.

Pretty darn cool. I think I know where it is... Aetna Springs?

If so that is a recent design... by a guy named Doak.

But of course I could be totally wrong. I am basing it only on the fact Benham posted it, and the backdrop.

[Kyle Henderson]

The "Mucci trail off' subject heading technique is spreading...

[Kirk Gill]

It's interesting that a hole can be so different because it isn't laden with a bunch of sand and mounding !! I guess on that level it is very different, at least very different from most modern design.

If this is a new Doak creation, I can't help but applaud. Like I said before, there's a remarkable lack of ego in that green complex, there's no "look at me look at me!" quality, and I personally admire that kind of restraint. I'm probably overstating (as I am unable to quell my massive ego and my own personal lookatmelookatme tendencies), but there is a peaceful, zen quality to that picture, and for whatever reason the hole looks like it belongs there.

And if you look at that green, there looks to be some interesting contour. Maybe that would also up the memorability factor.

[Rich Goodale]

Reminds me of the 7th at Mackenzie's Dalmunzie.

[Sean_A]

There looks to be one heck of a lot going on.  The green is well contoured and looks as if it slopes severely from the high right side.  I am guessing this hole catches a lot of folks out.  Plus, check out that ridge creasing off the front right of the green.  I wonder if balls not hit hard enough trying to kick in take that slope and roll short of the green leaving a nasty downhill right to left chip.  I like this sort of thing a lot and think the ideas used should be more prevalent in design. 


Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Loose the tree and the backdrop and this would be a quiet thread.




It works.... there.

I disagree! I assume you mean the tree on the left. Without it you still have gravity golf taking balls away to the left. If you build golf courses on interesting land there will be still be an interesting backdrop. If you build the hole on the great plains, then 1) you don't have the hole, because the land is flat, and 2) you are right it would be a quiet thread.

[Norbert P]

Reminds me of the 7th at Mackenzie's Dalmunzie.

Richard, are you sure you don't mean the 8th at Dalmunzie. I seem to recall the 7th was the shorty over the creek that looks like the prototype of Augusta's 13th green.

This picture looks faster and firmer than Dal 8 though.

Ahhh, Dalmunzie, the finest 9 holes McKenzie ever designed within 10 miles of it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Venturing into uncharted waters here... but I shall dare to design on what people here consider to be "architecture."

To me, this green site looks pretty cool as I said before.  However, what more can we really say about it not knowing the entirety of the golf hole, or at the very least what type of shot is likely to be played into it?  Also, wouldn't we need to see the rest of the course to effectively evaluate this hole?

By this I mean these things:

 - if it's a 100 yard par 3, I don't see it being all that cool... in fact it's pretty boring as the ridges and bounce in become meaningless.  One assumes it's not that....

 - if EVERY hole on the course is like this - (unbunkered and subtle) then again it's boring.  Not that one needs overkill in bunkering or hazards, but one can also have overkill in the lack thereof.  I'm sure we've all played basic golf courses that have few if any bunkers... for every one great course there are likely 100 that are bare-bones golf at best.

SO... in concept this green MIGHT be very cool.  But again it depends on many other factors.

[Charlie Goerges]

- if EVERY hole on the course is like this - (unbunkered and subtle) then again it's boring.  Not that one needs overkill in bunkering or hazards, but one can also have overkill in the lack thereof.  I'm sure we've all played basic golf courses that have few if any bunkers... for every one great course there are likely 100 that are bare-bones golf at best.

I have to disagree with this statement. What else exists on the course certainly determines whether the course is good or not, but this hole can be good in and of itself. Hypothetically speaking it might be the only good hole on the course; or it might be the wrong hole for the course (if the rest of it is Shadow Creek). How many courses have only 1 or 2 good holes? Does the fact that the others are not good detract from how good the 1 good hole is, or is it merely sad that the good hole's brethren do not live up to it's example?

[Tom Huckaby]

- if EVERY hole on the course is like this - (unbunkered and subtle) then again it's boring.  Not that one needs overkill in bunkering or hazards, but one can also have overkill in the lack thereof.  I'm sure we've all played basic golf courses that have few if any bunkers... for every one great course there are likely 100 that are bare-bones golf at best.

I have to disagree with this statement. What else exists on the course certainly determines whether the course is good or not, but this hole can be good in and of itself. Hypothetically speaking it might be the only good hole on the course; or it might be the wrong hole for the course (if the rest of it is Shadow Creek). How many courses have only 1 or 2 good holes? Does the fact that the others are not good detract from how good the 1 good hole is, or is it merely sad that the good hole's brethren do not live up to it's example?

Charlie:

I guess I ought to clarify.  Yes, good holes can exist independently.  What I meant is if every hole is like this one - no bunkers, very subtle - and this picture is ALL we see - it's hard to lavish much praise upon it.  We need to see the entirety of the golf hole, and the entirety of the golf course.  This hole could royally suck for all we can tell from this picture.  On top of this, I also do believe that how a hole fits into the course as a whole does matter in terms of the individual hole's quality.  It is not the DETERMINER, of course - but it does matter.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags: