[Jud_T]

Under the title "How do I get my course nationally rated?" in the current issue of Golfweek our sometime contributor Brad Klein, whose opinions I generally hold in the highest regard, states the following:

"2. If a hole needs explaining, it doesn't work...On the course, everything should be self-evident, whether it's how a hole plays or where the next hole lies."

I assume we can all agree with the "where the next hole lies" part, but I'm not sure I agree with the first assertion.  What about blind shots, hidden pot bunkers or subtle ground-game options that only reveal themselves over multiple plays? What about the finer points of strategy which can only be gleaned from trial and error or from a really good caddy who knows your game inside and out? What about figuring out fun, crazy greens? Hell, I'm still figuring out how to best play several holes at my club...

[Andy Troeger]

Jud,
There's a big difference between a hole being self-evident overall and being self-evident from the tee. I'm assuming Brad meant that the hole should be evident after one has played it, whether it be once or a few times. Your comments about blindness and options are still things that can be figured out by playing the hole, but perhaps not from the tee the first time around. I take Brad's comments to mean that if you play the hole and then go "huh?" that's probably not a good thing. And from my experience, he's right.

[Phil_the_Author]

Stand on the 1st tee of Winged Foot West. If you've never played there before you will simply try to hit your tee shot down the middle and will most likely see that nice big generous flat landing area on the left side. Place a perfect drive there and you've made a mistake.

Sorry Brad, not all holes should have the preferred method of playing it to be self-evident. No one would ever say that this hole isn't world-class and yet the place you want your drive to be is as far right in the bend of the fairway as you can get. The reason? Because the green has a series of undulations that run straight down it AT AN ANGLE to the center and left portions of the fairway. Shots that come into it from there run the very great risk of striking the face of one of the undulations and kicking right toward and into the rough or greenside bunker.

It was for that very reason that during the 1929 Open both Espinoza and Jones played their tee shots to that right corner and even into the rough so that their approach shots would more easily find the green.

That hole shares a feature with many other great Tillinghast ones where the only way to truly understand the hole design and how to play it is by looking back down the length of it from BEHIND the green! This is not a surprise as Tilly himself wrote that when he visited a course he had never before seen he always stood behind a hole to get an understanding of its architectural intent.

That definitely does not sound like a person who would agree with Brad and Golfweek's version of defining architectural intent and how it should be readily apparent at the tee.

Andy, I'm not so sure you're correct there. Many a very good hole requires multiple plays before one can truly understand the design strategies and the subtleties of them especially iof it one from the Golden Age. Again, WFW #1 is a great example of this. Why did it destroy the pros at the Open in the 70's? Because there drives were shorter and their shots into the green were with longer irons and the ball flights were lower, all qualities that magnify the importance of entering that green dead straight on.

Today's player who hits it higher, farther, with more spin and less side-to-side movement (draw or fade) has an inherent advantage over the other style of play, yet the hole was not designed with that style of play in mind. The large undulations with greater green speeds become more of a challenge for them and so it is still viewed as world-class. The fact is, though, that the design intent of how to play the hole as designed by tillinghast has become even more hidden because of the technological advances and is therefor LESS self-evident.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know why a hole should be self evident.  The implication is that every person ought to be able to understand the nuances of golf architecture, which would mean we have to design for the lowest common denominator.  

There are some golf holes I am still trying to figure out -- and I think that means they are really GOOD holes, not bad ones.

[Philippe Binette]

I feel like most designs are TOO evident...  and that subtlety is a lost art

most great holes I've seen have nuances that cannot be appreciated the first time around

[Sean_A]

I don't know why a hole should be self evident.  The implication is that every person ought to be able to understand the nuances of golf architecture, which would mean we have to design for the lowest common denominator.  

There are some golf holes I am still trying to figure out -- and I think that means they are really GOOD holes, not bad ones.

Si!

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Brad is a smart fellow. Maybe he meant it in a declaration of independence sort of way, ie "we hold these truths to be self-evident".  Kind of like something George Will would say, but from a different perspective...

Peter

[Dan King]

Andy Troeger writes:
I'm assuming Brad meant that the hole should be evident after one has played it, whether it be once or a few times.

If a statement needs explaining, it doesn't work.

I would strongly disagree with Mr. Klein. Good holes improve with each playing because many of the better features of a hole are not self evident immediately. Blah holes need no explanation.

Cheers,
Dan King

Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.
Galileo Galilei

[Peter Pallotta]

Of course, everyone so far has strongly disagreed with Brad - which makes me think that he just might be right! Like Tertullian saying "I believe because it is absurd".

Peter

[Chris Cupit]

I'll jump on the band wagon and say this seems like a strange thing to say.  The best holes for me are the ones I'm still trying to figure out. 

[TEPaul]

Did Professor Bradley Klein really say that?

Well maybe he did. Brad has been saying some curious things lately about golf and architecture. Not six weeks ago at Mountain Ridge I saw him hit a drive of very questionable execution off the 11th tee into a tree not far from the tee and he then proceeded to freak out and curse a blue streak and blame it on the tree!  

I think Bradley needs to do one of two things to continue his GCA education:

1. Turn "self evident" and "experience" into virtual GCA synonyms.

2. Read a lot more of Max Behr!


However, Bradley, I will stipulate that the day at Mountain Lake may've been an anomaly for you as it was sort of raining but more importantly you had your sweater tucked into your pants. Rain is one thing but tucking your sweater into your pants is the absolute pinnacle of GEEKDOME and nobody, not even a superstar can hit a decent drive with regularity with their sweater tucked into their pants as in the pinnacle of GEEKDOME.

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, on the only GREAT course I've ever played - Crystal Downs - I don't remember one hole where I didn't KNOW/SEE pretty quickly exactly what the hole was ASKING of me. But quite often what I saw was that it was asking me to make a CHOICE -- and, judging from the scores I shot I must've made the WRONG choice quite often that day. So, while I can understand how many of the holes at CD would take some time to FIGURE OUT, that doesn't mean they aren't SELF EVIDENT. It just means that the DATUM presented by those golf holes demands/requires my full ATTENTION.
Peter

[Mark McKeever]

When I have guests, I try to do a decent bit of explaining to them, but that's becuase Ross is a genius using visual deception.  I wouldnt say it's becuase the holes are bad.

Mark

[John Kavanaugh]

If a hole needs to be explained to Brad it doesn't work under the context of getting your course highly rated by Golfweek.  I find this to be perfectly acceptable and am surprised it needed to be explained.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have a feeling that Brad is referencing a trip to the airport he twittered about, in real time, sometime last year.  If you really want to know how to get your course rated highly by Golfweek I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee and follow Brad on Twitter.

[Jeff_Brauer]

When I have guests, I try to do a decent bit of explaining to them, but that's becuase Ross is a genius using visual deception.  I wouldnt say it's becuase the holes are bad.

Mark

Mark,

I hate to break it to you, but I once went through Ross plans in the Tufts Archives for a full day (it was raining at the '99 US Open).  I checked some of the plans where he was said to have used this feature, like 15 on No. 2.  Nowhere did he mention cutting a swale in front of the green to make it look further away, there or anywhere else.  He often mentioned that to build up the back of the green to see it and hold shots that the contractor could take dirt out of the front of the green.

If he was a genius, I think he was an accidental genius in that regard.

[Lester George]

Ditto Tom Doak!!  Well said!

Lester

[Mark McKeever]

Jeff,

Why would he mention his reasoning in achitectural plans?  In the plans/drawings that line the my club's walls, he mentions nothing about visual deception, but if you play the course, there's plenty there!

Mark

[archie_struthers]

 

Pretty strange comment unless Klein was alluding to the old adage that great courses tend to be "right out in front of you"'  Lots of the old pros first priority was to keep the ball there.

As someone who claims some good knowledge of Pine Valley , a great golf course" one of the most interesting things is that stategies are changing daily , oftern dictated by the pin position. You certainly could not glean these strategies at first look, or at least I've never seen anyone who did.

[JESII]

Do we have any examples of holes that actually DO need to be explained?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

If it was something he was going for and using his in house crew, I would think he might. Its been a while since I read Golf Has Never Failed Me, but I don't recall off hand him mentioning it there either. Of course, Ron Whitten may have edited that out, but I don't think he would.

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, to answer the original question, there is a difference, IMHO, in having a variety of strategies, strategies that vary daily based on pin setting, wind, and the like, and maybe even a potential shot hidden from you the first time, and a hole where you say "WTF?"

And yes, while there may be blind shots, the general direction should be clear with some kind of definition.

[Peter Pallotta]

Do we have any examples of holes that actually DO need to be explained?

I hope someone can answer Jim's question. He went to the trouble of thinking of and typing out 14 whole words....

[Ally Mcintosh]

“The vital thing about a hole is that it should be either more difficult than it looks or look more difficult than it is. It must never be what it looks.”`

Tom Simpson

...As subscribed to by Ally McIntosh

[JESII]

Do we have any examples of holes that actually DO need to be explained?

I hope someone can answer Jim's question. He went to the trouble of thinking of and typing out 14 whole words....

Which is a real effort today...but the question remains...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()