The role of the opening hole? Easy? Hard?

[Matt_Ward]

One of the tendencies I see in course construction today is the belief that the opening hole must "work" you into the actual golf course and not be overly difficult (hard to define the term of across the board difficulty?). Some good examples includes the 1st at Merion, TOC, NGL, etc.

It seems this pattern has become the de facto creed among a great number of courses -- especially the upscale public facilities. Many of these courses follow the same routine and usually the 2nd is one of the more demanding in the layout. Ditto the flip side with the 17th being the toughest and the 18th being fairly routine.

My question? Should the opening hole always be a fairly benign starter? Or, should it make a bold statement that puts you on notice RIGHT AWAY that you must be immediately on your game. Granted, some of the top courses in the USA come right out of the gate with a demanding test -- the 1st at WF / West, Oakmont, Oakland Hills / South, Somerset Hills, etc, etc. Some feature middle of the road holes that are clearly not automatic pars but can inflict some pain -- a couple of quick examples being the 1st at Lehigh, Plainfield, Alpine, PV. Augusta, etc.

How do others feel? I just get the sense that the standard motif for too many courses today is in following the "first hole shall be a gentle welcome" theme. Is the nature of what type of opening hole dependent upon the type of course you have (i.e. resort, private, daily-fee)? I think it does but I look forward to the answers of others.

[TEPaul]

I think an opening hole can be anything, considered easy, medium or hard as long as it's a good hole--has some interest, in other words.

But designers should feel free to do anything they want. Crump wanted something in particular, others probably did too, but maybe something entirely different.

I'm so glad there's never been any kind of formula for this and I hope there never will be one. Just another example of the interest of architecture---the fact that it can be and is so different from course to course.

[Paul Richards]

Matt:

Personally, I like the easy-opening, hard-closing style
offered by Donald Ross at my home course, Beverly CC.

The first two holes (356 and 558) ease you into the round.  Don't get me wrong, you can make a big number on either
hole, but you don't feel beat up right away.

The four-hole finish at Beverly is as good a four-hole finish
as any course I have ever seen.  No bulls**t!  Two very
stout par 4's (461 and 417) followed by a 209-yard par 3
to an impossible green, with a 592-yard par 5 climax.  It
doesn't get much better than that!

[TEPaul]

My course, Gulph Mills, a Ross 1919, is sort of an odd-duck in its opening and closing holes. The original opening hole was about a 460 "get into the round" par 5 that was shortened in the 1960s by tee alteration to a long par 4 of 427 to an uphill green which is not very conducive to an approach shot. The present hole has been consider very hard by the membership. Actually the first three holes are considered hard and the feeling has always been if you get through the first three holes even you'll probably have a good day. I've always looked at the first three holes as what I'd call a "hustler's start".

The first hole is a 427 par 4 and the finishing hole is a 421 par 5 which has been called by Tom Doak, "the most amusingly short par 5 of my acquaintence."

What you might lose on the first hole theoretically you should get back on the last hole but of course no one really looks at it that way!

[redanman]

This is a great topic.

Options

-Start 'em off easy for a hole or two, make it tougher later, get 'em out and going (Kemper LAkes when it opened in Chi-town even had a printed paper they handed out which gave architectural descriptions, strategy and theory).  This works well with public accecss, for sure

-Knock 'em fead right from the start, length doesn't have to be excessive (Cog Hill in Chicago, NGLA's #1 green is a bitch. #1 at Pine Valley gives you a taste, harder as you get to the green, WFW-tough, )

-Par 5 for an "ease into the round" (Slows play as people go for a green in 2 they can't reach-I really don't like this approach)

-Par 4 or 5?  What does "The land give you?" I prefer not a 5 for reasons above, but a long hard par 3 as #2 or 3 can back up a course especially public.


Personally, not that anyone cares, I don't like Par 5's as #1, 9, 10 or 18.  Flow goes well if you don't have a par 3 before say #3, 4 or even 5, long hard finishers have become a bad cliche, really awful. Two or three 4's to start give a good flow, but sometimes the land makes the choice for you unless you've got a bulldozer and a housing plan, then Katie bar the door!

Which brings up another thought which I'll put out as a thread.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Good question.

I'm definitely in the camp that says it depends on the type of venue.

For private clubs, I don't think there should be any hard rule.

For public access, I am most concerned about the impact of the first several holes on pace of play.  In the Cleveland area one of the best places to study to understand this point is Sleepy Hollow, an old Stanley Thompson design that is part of the Metroparks system.

For years they had a problem with the 2nd hole - the tee shot was way too hard for about 90% of the people playing the course.  It was a disaster.  Often one would find three groups on the tee.

Eventually the made the shot a little easier and also reversed nines so it plays as #11.

Believe me, if you had played the course very often, you would become dead set opposed to things being too difficult in the first couple holes.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Ditto the gentle opener, hard closer sentiment.

On the other hand, a strong opener, or even a quirky one, does lend itself to a little more thought and anticipation when warming up.

[schoeller]

Anyone familiar with the first hole at Aronimink?  It arguably is the hardest hole on that Ross course.  It is long (420 yds. from middle tees) and uphill with a slick two tiered green that drops off in the back a little. Despite its difficulty, I believe it is a very strong opening hole.  It is a good driving hole -- while you need the maximum distance, there is not much trouble on the tee shot.  It has a generous green, although two tiered, and the bunkers sit toward the side of the green and one fairway bunker cuts into the right side of the fairway a touch, but it really is not in play for most.  For better players, while it is a tough par and even a tougher birdie, there is no great risk of a double bogey or worse.  It also fits well with the entire design and it a nice introduction to the type of greens found on the next 17 holes.

[mmalone]

at Rolling Green the first hole looks innocent at 380 yds. straigtaway.however,the green is severely sloped which often leads to 3 or 4 putts or putts off the green if you are not careful.we say that visitors get "the Rolling Green experience".you learn right away that "it's the greens stupid"

[NAF]

My opening hole at Alpine always gets the knees shaking for me..The funny thing is it used to be the 17th in Tillinghast's original hole numbering and would have been the
ultimate penultimate hole..

It is 418 yards long...So what? A line of giant oak trees guards the right side (and separates it from #9) the hole way down.  The hole fairway slopes like a supertanker
up on the rocks from right to left.  There is not a level lie anywhere, nor can you afford to hit anything but a draw here to get maximum roll.  A fade will die into the fairway
sloping and you will be left with a long iron second of about 190 yards..A draw will give you a lot of roll and leave a second of about 150 yards but from a challenging
angle with a lateral hazard down the left side to take any hooked approach..

The green is elevated and crowned to a degree and plays at least a club and one-half longer for the approach.  And putting?  Well there are at least 2 ridges running thru the
green and it is one of the fastest on the course.

A great intro..I have yet to birdie it in 200+ attempts..Par is a very good score.  As Matt Ward would say, this hole is a good handshake..It rewards the person who plays it strategically..which in this case means conservatively and wise to start the round.

But I still prefer Plainfield's in the state and Shinnecock's or Sand Hills overall..

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- The premise of your post is a bit confusing. You say that in 'course construction today', yet you site examples from the past merion et al.

IMO it seems if your building a course today(or in the last 5 years) you need to appreciate the fact that the majority of people playing your course are probably not good golfers and have little or no ettiquette or knowledge of pace of play requirements.

[Matt_Ward]

My biggest problem is that the "easy opening hole" is becoming a fast cliche for many designers today. Go to many upscale public layouts today and large percentages have the pro forma "anything goes" opener. Sometimes there is no risk whatsoever.

I'm not advocating that openers must be as tenacious as the 1st at WF / West, but it almost seems the opening hole at many new courses today is nothing more than just plain vanilla and lacking any real spice.

For what's it worth I like a risk-reward type hole as a starter -- a dynamite par-5 is one example type. This allows you to "ease" into the round if you are not completely warmed-up, but still provides the temptation for those who nail the opening shot and then must decide if they wish to be bold on their second shot to gain an early advantage. A good exmaple was mentioned by NAF with the 1st at Sand Hills. Plenty of early decisions and just right in my mind. The 1st at Riviera and Bel-Air are also other examples of that type.

[Ed_Baker]

It's funny some of the golf myths that are passed from generation to generation. One that always amused me was the "Ross Handshake" the myth that he tried to start you off with an easy hole to get in to the round. Already on this thread there are examples to the contrary. My home course is contrary to the myth as #1 is 415 yard par 4 with an uphill approach to one of the most severe greens anywhere, it is also the #3 stroke hole. Always good to get rid of giving the strokes early, but 7 out of 10 times I'm 1 down going to the second tee in tournaments!

How about the two opening brutes at Wannamoisett,wow, talk about tough. I think most of the dead guys just got the best golf out of the sight and it is what it is.

To Adams' point I think the "intended useage" is much more critical on todays courses and if I had a preference it would be, easy opener,tough finisher.

Just my $.02

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,

My concern about a risk reward par 5 to open a public access course is the effect on pace of play.  IMO, it wouldn't be good.

As Adam Clayman suggests, there are a large number of people playing the game today who aren't very good and know little about the art of moving quickly on a golf course.

You'll find many such people on both munis and CCFADs.

So why build anything that sets the wrong pace of play for the entire round?

What purpose does it serve?

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

The number one reason for slow play is the lack of oversight by the people running the facility. If the people running the operation take a proactive and consistent approach the effect of slow play is significantly minimized. Most don't -- they simply talk about it and when that happens the inmates begin to run the aslyum.

Most facilities do not adequately orientate their own staffs on what constitutes slow play -- they simply give the walkie-talkie and say go "range." Most are either too busy looking for lost balls or the girl with the bikini by the pool. Yes, there are many golfers today who have very high handicaps, but smart management can keep things moving if they really want to do it -- pure and simple. I can list a number of ways this can be done but that's not the purpose of this thread.

Whether a hole is a risk / reward or otherwise is not that critically important to me. I just think opening holes on many designs that I see around the country are following a standard path of a no-challenge, usually-boring opener. I also don't care about length, however, I don't think it's bad to have a really demanding hole at the outset if it fits with the land -- that's why they have practice areas / driving ranges before you play.

Hope this helps you understand my thoughts ...

[SL_Solow]

While I don't like them, I've always thought a par 3 #1 might work as a means of spacing play and helping to fight slow play.  Since each group would only tee off after the preceding group left the green it would allow some get away time on the 2nd hole.  Waiting on the 1st tee would seem less onerous than the wait that inevitably develops at the first par 3.  Nonetheless, I really don't like to start the day with a tee shot on a par 3 preferring to start on a hole that allows you to stretch it out a little.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I don't want to hijack the thread and go off on a tangent about all the factors contributing to slow play.

Rather, I'm simply saying that when it comes to public access courses, I'd prefer to avoid beginning the round with holes that will tend, by their very nature, to aggravate the slow play problem so prevalent in American golf.

Remember, the architect is charged with creating a pleasurable experience.  A bunch of lost balls and long delays on the first couple holes usually don't make a positive contribution towards that end.

I'm curious, have you never played a course that committed this sin?

If so, how did it make you feel?

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

In answering your question -- my frustration was not with the players, but with the failure of management at that facility, or any other, for usually doing what they always do -- NOTHING!

Let's understand something very quickly -- there are players where you can build a hole as wide as Kansas with no rough, no hazards and flat as a pancake and there would be slow play IF management didn't intervene. The same is true on the flip side.

Give you an exmaple -- the 1st at Bethpage Black (430 yards) is a middle of the road starting hole in terms of difficulty in my mind. It does require a solid tee shot to get around the corner of the dog-leg right. Even though the tee is elevated there is rough on both sides and players can sometimes stumble right out of the gate. A number of years back, management would do nothing, but stamp your green fee tickets and you would proceed only as fast as the group in front decided was appropriate. The result? Back-ups at the 2nd tee were so bad you could have read the entire NY Times Sunday section!!!

Where was management? Did they have a plan? Do they care?
That has since changed at Bethpage because existing management thoroughly understands the long term harm that slow play can wreak when management sleeps at the switch.

Tim, I cut my teeth playing public golf since I was 12 and very few public courses (muni / upscale, etc) really attack slow play with aggressive follow-up for the betterment of most of the players. Monitoring play means exactly that -- not monitoring where lost balls have been hit and serve as a ball hawk or watching the girl by the pool.

With that said let's back to the thread at hand -- I really believe the 1st hole should not be a pro forma "let it be easy with no penalties" approach you see at too many modern designs today. I'm not advocating the 1st at WF / West by any stretch, but the cookie-cutter type holes you often get as the starting hole can certainly be mixed up in terms of overall challenge.

Don't confuse slow play with the aspect of what type of hole is the 1st. That onus falls squarely on the shoulders of management at that facility.  

[Warren Lehr]

As a course operator that spends a good deal of time training course marshals and monitoring the real pace of play, I can tell you that T. Weiman has a valid point.  Ninety percent of golfers don't warm up properly and are typically not ready for a severe challenge on #1.  The first couple of holes definitely influence the pace of the group.  If it takes 20 minutes to play the par four first, the marshal is in for a tough challenge.

What surprises me most about this discussion though is the absence of reference to the good Doctor Alistair MacKenzie's definitive work on architecture.  It's been awhile since I've read it and I don't have it here with me, but I believe his first rule is to start the golfer with a forgiving opener and let the holes become continually more difficult as the round progresses.  I'll check this out though.

Here's one for you Matt.  How do you like LA North opening with back to back par 5's?

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Call me a sucker, but I like dramatic openers.  I would much rather have a course burst out of the gate, like Spyglass or Sagamore.  Seems to me that Pete Dye did not choose the hard route most of the time, what was his reasoning?

[Matt_Ward]

Warren:

Glad to see your post -- hope all is well at Paa Ko.

I have to ask you this -- there are some golfers who could warm-up for days with Leadbetter and Harmon watching them and it would not matter what condition they were in when they finally hit the 1st tee.

Second, you say a group is permitted to play the first hole in 20 minutes. 20 minutes!!! Who's watching the store for management? When people simply crawl from the get-go and management simply says, "ah shucks," something is major league wrong.

Don't doubt the Doctor's wisdom, but his thoughts don't mean you have to automatically concede the 1st hole as a throw-away without any real possibilities for challenge. I'm not advocating the 1st has to be the absolute brutal knock-your-socks-off long par-4 bordered by all types of difficulties, but can we please move beyond the mundane 375 yard par-4 that lays as flat as four-day-old Pepsi.

As far as LACC is concerned I think the start there is rather unique but if that applied to a public course you'd need a marshall stationed halfway down the fairway to require groups to hit their second shots because, you know as well as I, that some player will absolutely wait until the group clears the green before pulling the trigger with the second shot.

Management at many facilities I have visited takes the approach that asking people to play faster is a no-win situation so why do it. It's ironic that management won't risk offending those who are the culprits but let's everyone else suffer. Something is definitley wrong with that picture.

I agree with Ben you can have dramatic openers that provide for challenge and clearly have options for different levels of play. Ben, I wonder what's your take on the opening hole at Devil's Pulpit. Dramatic no doubt and clearly with a wealth of options for all levels. Does that hole fit your description?

[Bill_McBride]

As has been posted here before, Dr MacKenzie started many of his courses with a relatively easy par 5 because there was no warm up facility (no driving range).  

I think a lot of slow play is caused by 8 minute tee time intervals rather than 10 minutes.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

We are in complete agreement that the management of many, if not most, public facilities does not do a very good job when it comes to pace of play.

I'm not optimistic this will change here or elsewhere.  To the contrary, I see Americans exporting our bad habits across the pond.

But, that is not the subject of your thread.

You asked about the design of opening holes.  My answer remains that for private clubs I don't have any rule in mind.

But, for public access facilities I would lean in favor of holes 1-3 encouraging pace of play.

That doesn't mean I would always pass up opening holes like Ben Dewar mentioned.  Indeed, I like the opening holes at both Spyglass Hill and the Sagamore.

Still, given the state of the game today, I would place emphasis on moving play along and wouldn't want to encourage the golf industry to create more difficult opening holes.

[kilfara]

I daresay that a long, unreachable par 5 (cf. Spyglass) is an ideal opening hole for courses at which slow play is an issue - everyone can bomb it off the tee, and the second (and third, for some) shots don't have to be made with a particular amount of thought. That should get everyone moving right from the off, shouldn't it?

Other than that, though, I think the site of the clubhouse and other peripheral factors should be more important in determining the type of opening hole at any given course than anything else. Good golf holes are good golf holes - it doesn't really matter what kind of holes they are. If you want to worry about one end of the course, worry about the finish - where the drama in competitions can be more neatly orchestrated - and not the start. (When they renumbered the holes at Ballybunion, they renumbered them to get the two back-to-back par 5s out of the slots for #17 and #18...they didn't really care what came in as #1 and #2, did they?)

Cheers,
Darren

[Tim_Weiman]

Darren,

I agree with you about #1 at Spyglass.  It is one of the most dramatic opening holes in golf and probably also favorable from a pace of play point of view.

Regarding the Ballybunion I know and love, pace of play is rarely a problem during members play, so it probably wouldn't ever matter what the sequence of holes was.

During visitors' time, I'd probably favor the current routing over the original, mostly because the sixth green tends to be tricky and takes longer to play.

I understand arguments about building the best course possible given the land, but still favor making the opening holes fairly benign on public courses - as a guideline not an absolute rule - because of what I see happening to golf in America (more people entering the game who were never taught how to move and respect others on the golf course).