Holes that take you away from the ocean

[Scott Warren]

I've been reading a bit about Praia d'el Rey ahead of my visit there next month and noticed one of the holes I am most looking forward to - the short par four 4th - heads away from the beach after a two-hole stretch down the coast.

I was thinking about other courses I've played where the routing takes you to, along and then away from the coast one or more times, and how important the hole that takes you away from the coast is in not leaving you disappointed to be heading inland.

At NSW the 7th and 15th are holes I always look forward to, even though they end the seaside stretches.
At R. St George's you interact with the ocean on 5-7, then 8 takes you back inland, but is a cracking hole (as are 9 and 10).
At Trevose the short par five 5th to a skyline green is great fun, even if you're leaving the sea behind.

One that doesn't do the job so well, I think, is the 16th at The European. A nothing hole following the joy of 12-15, and it begins a pretty average closing stretch.

What are the best and worst examples of this?

[Sean_A]

Scott

The 4th at PdR is very clever at taking the golfer away from the sea.  I don't know if it was done on purpose, but because the hole is likely the best on the course one doesn't mind turning away from the sea.


Of course, two famous examples of courses weaving near and away from the sea few times are Cruden Bay and Ballybunion.  I am sure Robinson had this in mind when he created PdR.  

Another example of clever routing with the sea in mind is Pennard.  The course starts off with one's back turned to a glorious setting.  A good view of the sea/pill isn't gained until the 4th, though we are teased a b it on the 3rd green and it reaches a wonderful climax on the 7th before turning away from the sea.  We then head back toward the sea for the 10th, away on the 11th for a fabulous par 3 then straight along the pill for #s 12 & 13. Looking back from the tee on #14 gives a taste of what will come later while playing the back to back par 5s - #s 16 & 17.  But to stick with #14, it is a grand transition away from the sea because of the superb approach to a raised green.  Of course, looking back from the 18th tee, we are afforded one last look before finishing what I think is one of the very best routed courses I have ever seen.  In fact, I am not sure why I didn't list Pennard in my top 25 Best (it comfortably makes my top favourites) when you asked for the list.  It was probably a mistake not to.

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/pennard-golf-club

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think Lahinch is perhaps the ultimate example of this (in my knowledge)... The cracking shore-length 3rd hole is followed by Klondyke and Dell... The shore-length 7th hole is followed by Hawtree's fantastic par-3 8th and the downhill MacKenzie original 9th hole... and the estuary 12th hole is followed by that wonderful short par-4 that is the 13th...

Kingsbarns 9th does it extremely well too...

And as much as I like The Castle Course at St. Andrews, the 10th hole is a bit of a disappointment after 6,7,8,9 especially when you consider it is a 150 yard uphill walk to the tee...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

I think it's easier to head away from the ocean than it is to use the ocean as a feature on a hole.

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes use the ocean in different ways.
At Bandon, there's more of a head on angle of attack on the ocean, especially on the par 3's on the back nine, whereas, Pacific Dunes uses the ocean in a more flanking perspective.

Thus, moving away from the ocean may be determined by how you approach the ocean

[Ally Mcintosh]

Scott,

I think it's easier to head away from the ocean than it is to use the ocean as a feature on a hole.

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes use the ocean in different ways.
At Bandon, there's more of a head on angle of attack on the ocean, especially on the par 3's on the back nine, whereas, Pacific Dunes uses the ocean in a more flanking perspective.

Thus, moving away from the ocean may be determined by how you approach the ocean

Ah Patrick... Surely we are talking mainly (although not solely) aesthetics in this instance.... Although I realise that you believe views have nothing whatsoever to do with how good a golf course is, I think we are talking about holes which have the ocean removed from the golfer's primary vision... the removal of the 'WOW' factor that an ocean can provide...

[Cristian]

I've been reading a bit about Praia d'el Rey ahead of my visit there next month and noticed one of the holes I am most looking forward to - the short par four 4th - heads away from the beach after a two-hole stretch down the coast.

I was thinking about other courses I've played where the routing takes you to, along and then away from the coast one or more times, and how important the hole that takes you away from the coast is in not leaving you disappointed to be heading inland.

At NSW the 7th and 15th are holes I always look forward to, even though they end the seaside stretches.
At R. St George's you interact with the ocean on 5-7, then 8 takes you back inland, but is a cracking hole (as are 9 and 10).
At Trevose the short par five 5th to a skyline green is great fun, even if you're leaving the sea behind.

One that doesn't do the job so well, I think, is the 16th at The European. A nothing hole following the joy of 12-15, and it begins a pretty average closing stretch.

What are the best and worst examples of this?

I have played the course a few years ago, and the funny thing is when I read your post I was pretty sure that the hole was actually more or less flanked by the sea. Upon checking the routing, I of course found out it isn't. I think this illusion comes from the uphill nature of the hole. From the green there is a great few of the ocean, perhaps better than on the previous green which is actually closer to the ocean. And as you mentioned; it is also easily the best hole on the course. One remark though; two and three are not really seaside holes (although they offer a peek), the only true seaside (or rather cliffside ) holes are 12-15.

As for other examples; the holes at Teeth of the Dog turning inland did not impress me enough visually, or otherwise to not be disappointed to move away from the sea (although that probably says more about the seaside holes than the inland turning holes). Having said that, I did like some of the inland holes very much, more than the ones turning away from the sea.

[James Boon]

Scott,

I've been thinking about the various links courses I've played in relation to this thread, and its reminded me that there are actually very few links courses with holes directly by the sea. Many classic out and back courses will very rarely have holes right by the coast, as the coast will be more in the background or beyond dunes and not really a factor architecturally or aesthetically.

The 12th at Askernish is a cracking strategic par 5 that runs away from the sea, when the previous green is virtually on the beach! The strategic nature of it, keeps your interest very well, when a poorer hole would leave you pining for the sea views.

The 6th at Brora turns inland away from the sea and is one of my favourite par 3s, though the previous 5 holes run along the sea rather than being right on top of it (except the 2nd tee).

The 6th at Royal Portrush is for me an under rated hole on the course, and after the 5th green sitting on the clifftops, its a good hole taking you back inland.

As an slight footnote, one of the things Castle Stuart does very well is utilise the sea (or in this case the Moray Firth) as a backdrop to holes that are actually some way away from the sea. Therefore there are holes that play towards and away from the sea, when they are in fact some way away from the coast line, often with other holes between them and the sea.

Cheers,

James

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

I think it's easier to head away from the ocean than it is to use the ocean as a feature on a hole.

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes use the ocean in different ways.
At Bandon, there's more of a head on angle of attack on the ocean, especially on the par 3's on the back nine, whereas, Pacific Dunes uses the ocean in a more flanking perspective.

Thus, moving away from the ocean may be determined by how you approach the ocean

Ah Patrick... Surely we are talking mainly (although not solely) aesthetics in this instance.... Although I realise that you believe views have nothing whatsoever to do with how good a golf course is, I think we are talking about holes which have the ocean removed from the golfer's primary vision... the removal of the 'WOW' factor that an ocean can provide...

Ally,

NO, I'm talking about routing

[Ally Mcintosh]

Scott,

I think it's easier to head away from the ocean than it is to use the ocean as a feature on a hole.

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes use the ocean in different ways.
At Bandon, there's more of a head on angle of attack on the ocean, especially on the par 3's on the back nine, whereas, Pacific Dunes uses the ocean in a more flanking perspective.

Thus, moving away from the ocean may be determined by how you approach the ocean

Ah Patrick... Surely we are talking mainly (although not solely) aesthetics in this instance.... Although I realise that you believe views have nothing whatsoever to do with how good a golf course is, I think we are talking about holes which have the ocean removed from the golfer's primary vision... the removal of the 'WOW' factor that an ocean can provide...

Ally,

NO, I'm talking about routing

In what way Patrick?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

I think it's easier to head away from the ocean than it is to use the ocean as a feature on a hole.

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes use the ocean in different ways.
At Bandon, there's more of a head on angle of attack on the ocean, especially on the par 3's on the back nine, whereas, Pacific Dunes uses the ocean in a more flanking perspective.

Thus, moving away from the ocean may be determined by how you approach the ocean

Ah Patrick... Surely we are talking mainly (although not solely) aesthetics in this instance.... Although I realise that you believe views have nothing whatsoever to do with how good a golf course is, I think we are talking about holes which have the ocean removed from the golfer's primary vision... the removal of the 'WOW' factor that an ocean can provide...

Ally,

NO, I'm talking about routing

In what way Patrick?

In the sequencing of the holes from # 1 to # 18, in the context of interfacing with the ocean.

In what way are you talking ?

Just to correct you, my belief is that the views beyond the golf course have no impact on the merits of the architectural features of a given hole.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Scott,

I think it's easier to head away from the ocean than it is to use the ocean as a feature on a hole.

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes use the ocean in different ways.
At Bandon, there's more of a head on angle of attack on the ocean, especially on the par 3's on the back nine, whereas, Pacific Dunes uses the ocean in a more flanking perspective.

Thus, moving away from the ocean may be determined by how you approach the ocean

Ah Patrick... Surely we are talking mainly (although not solely) aesthetics in this instance.... Although I realise that you believe views have nothing whatsoever to do with how good a golf course is, I think we are talking about holes which have the ocean removed from the golfer's primary vision... the removal of the 'WOW' factor that an ocean can provide...

Ally,

NO, I'm talking about routing

In what way Patrick?

In the sequencing of the holes from # 1 to # 18, in the context of interfacing with the ocean.

In what way are you talking ?

Just to correct you, my belief is that the views beyond the golf course have no impact on the merits of the architectural features of a given hole.

Apologies for wrongly paraphrasing your beliefs...

I don't think this is about routing (well, in so much as I believe everything is about routing but this no more so than most)... I think this is simply down to the fact that ocean holes, whether approached head on to the sea or flanked by the sea, are generally the holes that stick in most golfer's minds when playing a golf course... Ensuring the hole that takes you away is memorable is therefore a difficult art...

You stated that moving away from the ocean can differ depending on how you approach it... Why does that matter when answering this question? Why and how do Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes succeed and / or fail?...

I believe one reason for success (with regards to routing if you wish) is when you are given a glimpse yet you know you are returning... But that's taking a whole course approach... The holes I quoted above (Lahinch and Kingsbarns) succeed because individually, they are some of the best holes on their respective courses, regardless of routing... Is that the same at Bandon?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

With Pacific Dunes, the ocean is more "in play" than at Bandon Dunes.

When your angle of attack is at 90* the ocean is usually far removed from play versus a hole where the ocean flanks the hole.
In one instance, the ocean serves, from a practical point, only as a visual element, while with the other, the ocean is a physical element, a feature of the golf course.

Moving away from the ocean presents the same challenge as moving toward it does, unless you're analysis is blinded by the visual.
The quality of the hole is the determining factor, not the views afforded.

One of the most interesting arrangements involving the ocean and its use is the 10th and 11th holes at Pacific Dunes.
I find both holes to be exceptional, if not fantastic, yet one hole attacks the ocean at about 90* while the other has the ocean flanking it.  I find the individual and collective features of those holes to be exceptional, fantastic, yet both use the ocean in different ways.  If instead of having architectural and playing merits, with each of the holes being bland, without much in the way of complimentary features, you'd categorize the holes as nice holes with good views, when they would really be mediocre holes with exceptional views.  In other words, the architect would have sold you the sizzle absent the steak.  I prefer a great steak, and if sizzle accompanies it, all the better.

Well, the same applies to every hole that follows a GREAT hole.
the comparative analysis.
Only you've added in the visual element in terms of the presence of the ocean.

You didn't qualify the hole leading to or paralleling the ocean, hence, the hole that follows that hole has only to possess similar architectural merit, in terms of conitinuity.  It can't be exponentially worse, it can be equal to or better than, but, it shouldn't be inferior, architecturally, to its predecessor. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I like your last paragraph Patrick... That's a nice sentiment...

I do think that you are overlooking a couple of things though in the rest of your statement... Generally speaking, the average golfer puts the ocean high on the list of features that he remembers... The closer the hole to the sea, the better, regardless of what effect the ocean has on the strategy of the hole... Secondly, I'd hazard a guess that the ocean / sea does not affect the strategy of the golf hole on the majority of seaside holes, certainly on links courses where there is often a fore-dune ridge between hole and beach. There are many (and obvious) exceptions to this - is this the case at Pacific Dunes for example?... Nevertheless, it is often just the visual element that adds to an ocean side hole...

Most people are blinded by views... Hence the importance of making a great hole to follow them... which is where your last paragraph makes perfect sense...

[Niall C]

Ally

Point of clarification on no. 9 at Kingsbarns, does it really play away from the sea ? If anything I would have said that it plays parallel to the coastline if anything, certainly thats my impression of it. And also from what I remember you have the 7th and 16th (?) between the 9th and the coast as well.

Niall

[Rory Connaughton]

Jason, I agree with 6 at Portrush. I think 14 (Calamity) also serves as a worthy distraction but more due to the fear it causes.
13 at Rosses Point does a nice job as well.

[Jason Topp]

17 at Dornoch is a good one

[Scott Warren]

Moving away from the ocean presents the same challenge as moving toward it does, unless you're analysis is blinded by the visual.

That's true from a purely architectural POV, but I think most golfers take in much more than just the architecture in the sensory experience of playing golf.

That's what I was trying to get at. Playing along or towards the ocean, with such thrilling views, sounds and smells, adds an extra element to merely enjoying a fine golf course, so when you turn away from the water, especially if dunes or trees remove it from sight/sound quite quickly, you abruptly lose an X factor that heightens your enjoyment of the course and the general golfing experience.

It was my suggestion, I suppose, that it takes a pretty good golf hole for that departure to not cause a bit of a downer.

I take your point that a good golf hole is a good golf hole with or without interaction with the sea that doesn't affect the playing of the hole.

[Greg McMullin]

Here is an early spring photo of Number 7 at Cape Breton Highlands Links. Many keen observers of Canadian Courses consider this to be the best Par 5 in the country. It is the first hole that takes you from the coast into the Clyburn Valley and is my personal favorite hole. If you refer to the aerial photo you can just see number 7 in the middle right.

[Kalen Braley]

18 at CPC?   

Actually I really loved 14 at Pacific Dunes....terrific short hole!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott and Ally,

If I accept your point of view as a given, then the architectural quality of a hole leading to or bordering the ocean is IRRELEVANT to most golfers.

Continuing with your reasoning, it wouldn't matter how great the architectural merits of the succeeding hole were, it would automatically pale in comparison to the ocean hole, no matter how void the ocean hole is of architectural merit.

Some golfers have the ability to discern when it comes to architecture, apparently you're discussing those golfers absent that ability.

I thought that the 11th, 12th and 13th holes at Pacific Dunes were one of the great stretches of golf holes I've played, and, they fit my three hole par 3, par 4 and par 5 test to a tee.  While I liked # 14, I thought of it as more of a connector than an independent hole, one that had to live up to its predecessors.

Apparently, your position is that once a view of the ocean comes into the golfers eye, the values/perceptions of the hole are elevated beyond the architectural merits.

That's a theory that I can't buy into

[Ally Mcintosh]

Apparently, your position is that once a view of the ocean comes into the golfers eye, the values/perceptions of the hole are elevated beyond the architectural merits.

That's a theory that I can't buy into

Absolutely they are Patrick... I'm afraid that's the reality... That's not to say that you can't have disappointing holes by the ocean - of course you can... But ocean holes tend to get an easier ride of things from 99.99% of golfers...

Look at it another way - why not consider the ocean views to be an integral part of the design process (and therefore an architectural feature)... After all, the architect has to route his course to make use of the ocean... He also has the ability within each hole to maximise the use of the ocean (e.g. horizon greens)

Ally

Point of clarification on no. 9 at Kingsbarns, does it really play away from the sea ? If anything I would have said that it plays parallel to the coastline if anything, certainly thats my impression of it. And also from what I remember you have the 7th and 16th (?) between the 9th and the coast as well.

Niall

Niall, you may be right that it plays parallel to 7 & 16 but certainly the primary feeling is heading away from the sea back towards the clubhouse after playing in to the little wooded sea-side dell on no.8... Just as well it's a cracking hole... If this was a non descript uphill long par-5, it would be a big let down after playing the previous few holes on the lower shelf...

[Scott Warren]

Scott and Ally,

If I accept your point of view as a given, then the architectural quality of a hole leading to or bordering the ocean is IRRELEVANT to most golfers.

Continuing with your reasoning, it wouldn't matter how great the architectural merits of the succeeding hole were, it would automatically pale in comparison to the ocean hole, no matter how void the ocean hole is of architectural merit.

Some golfers have the ability to discern when it comes to architecture, apparently you're discussing those golfers absent that ability.

Apparently, your position is that once a view of the ocean comes into the golfers eye, the values/perceptions of the hole are elevated beyond the architectural merits.

That's a theory that I can't buy into

I don't think it is irrelevent.

I would argue that even those golfers who can appreciate and enjoy architecture are still human, and humans are affected by things that make them feel good - a beautiful view, a pleasant scent, a fond memory, to feel loved - all of those things are able to affect us at any time, including when we are playing golf.

Those feelings highten the enjoyment of any situation.

So I can't accept that a golf hole routed along a beautiful stretch of seaside is not preferable to our senses than the same hole routed through a garbage tip.

A poor golf hole is still a poor golf hole, but will 99.9% of people enjoy the experience more if they are in a beautiful setting? I think so.

As far as you suggesting my position as "it wouldn't matter how great the architectural merits of the succeeding hole were, it would automatically pale in comparison to the ocean hole", I'm not saying that at all, just that if you remove one element of the experience - one that thrills and enriches most people - the remaining elements, driven by the hole design - need to be very good for there to not be a "downer" at the loss of that fantastic element.

[Sean_A]

Scott and Ally,

If I accept your point of view as a given, then the architectural quality of a hole leading to or bordering the ocean is IRRELEVANT to most golfers.

Continuing with your reasoning, it wouldn't matter how great the architectural merits of the succeeding hole were, it would automatically pale in comparison to the ocean hole, no matter how void the ocean hole is of architectural merit.

Some golfers have the ability to discern when it comes to architecture, apparently you're discussing those golfers absent that ability.

Apparently, your position is that once a view of the ocean comes into the golfers eye, the values/perceptions of the hole are elevated beyond the architectural merits.

That's a theory that I can't buy into

I don't think it is irrelevent.

I would argue that even those golfers who can appreciate and enjoy architecture are still human, and humans are affected by things that make them feel good - a beautiful view, a pleasant scent, a fond memory, to feel loved - all of those things are able to affect us at any time, including when we are playing golf.

Those feelings highten the enjoyment of any situation.

So I can't accept that a golf hole routed along a beautiful stretch of seaside is not preferable to our senses than the same hole routed through a garbage tip.

A poor golf hole is still a poor golf hole, but will 99.9% of people enjoy the experience more if they are in a beautiful setting? I think so.

As far as you suggesting my position as "it wouldn't matter how great the architectural merits of the succeeding hole were, it would automatically pale in comparison to the ocean hole", I'm not saying that at all, just that if you remove one element of the experience - one that thrills and enriches most people - the remaining elements, driven by the hole design - need to be very good for there to not be a "downer" at the loss of that fantastic element.

Scott

I fall in your camp.  If an archie does anything to include views (good or bad) then they are part of the architecture.  Indeed, we have a very publicized example with Castle Stuart.  The archie went out of his way to use vistas for framing his holes.  Okay, this is planned, but even if not planned, I believe vistas are an important part of the architectural experience for the golfer.  The same is truth of the reverse when an archie blocks vistas which may not be visually enticing and thus could be considered as a hinderance to the overall quality of the hole.  Its really no different from how archies frame their holes and set-up certain looks for the interior views.  Archies look at the full picture in an effort to create interesting golf which is made more interesting with pleasant views.  In fact, one could even argue that archies have gone too far with aesthetics sometimes at the expense of interesting golf. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Have you guys lost your minds ?

If an archie does anything to include views (good or bad) then they are part of the architecture.

The site, not the architect, determines if the property has ocean views.
What's the architect going to do, put 40 foot high wall up to block the views.
Sooner or later, as one plays the course, almost irrespective of the routing, you're going to have ocean views.
Can you imagine designing any of the courses and Bandon and NOT having ocean views ?
Pebble Beach ?  Spyglass ?  CPC ?,  MPCC ?
Ocean views are inherent IN THE PROPERTY.
Just because a hole has an ocean view doesn't mean it has adequate or superlative architectural merit.

Your individual and collective position/s seem/s to be that if you have a rotten steak and you put enough ketchup on it, you'll have a good meal.  I don't buy it.

But, now let me take your position and relate it to a real world experience.

Bodega Harbor must be the greatest golf course in the world.
Every hole has a view of the Pacific Ocean and coastline to the West and the Mountains to the East.

How can Bodega Harbor not be the # 1 or amongst the top 100 courses in the country

[Sean_A]

Have you guys lost your minds ?

If an archie does anything to include views (good or bad) then they are part of the architecture.

The site, not the architect, determines if the property has ocean views.
What's the architect going to do, put 40 foot high wall up to block the views.
Sooner or later, as one plays the course, almost irrespective of the routing, you're going to have ocean views.
Can you imagine designing any of the courses and Bandon and NOT having ocean views ?
Pebble Beach ?  Spyglass ?  CPC ?,  MPCC ?
Ocean views are inherent IN THE PROPERTY.
Just because a hole has an ocean view doesn't mean it has adequate or superlative architectural merit.

Your individual and collective position/s seem/s to be that if you have a rotten steak and you put enough ketchup on it, you'll have a good meal.  I don't buy it.

But, now let me take your position and relate it to a real world experience.

Bodega Harbor must be the greatest golf course in the world.
Every hole has a view of the Pacific Ocean and coastline to the West and the Mountains to the East.

How can Bodega Harbor not be the # 1 or amongst the top 100 courses in the country

Pat

A lot of pre-existing land formations which an archie may use are part of the property.  Is this not included in the architecture when the project is finished?

Ciao