[Mac Plumart]

I am just about done reading Donald Ross' book/notes "Golf has Never Failed Me" and in his 'Who Needs a Golf Critic?' section he said somethings that I can't get out of my head.  I wanted to post it, just 'cause I thought it was really interesting and applicable to the core of what this site is all about.

He says...

"The British architect of golf links...do(es) not lay out a links across the water as a rule of thumb of having the drive such a distance, the second shot such a distance, the approach such a distance and so on, let alone mentioning the club that shall be used for each shot...
the real spirit of golf...says that the way to reach a hole is by using the clubs and by taking the route which will get the player to the green in his own way. 

The golf holes on the best links...have several different ways of playing them, and because they do not present just one and only one way to everybody, the interest in the game increases with the diversity of its problems."


This struck me as interesting for a number of reasons. 

#1--width of fairways open up more options, right?  Just like Mr. Ross discusses.  Isn't target golf the exact opposite of what he is talking about?  Island greens as well?   As they limited options and clearly define, if not mandate, a specific course of attack for a golf hole. 

and

#2--"the interest in the game increases with the diversity of its problems"  This to me is one of those phrases that I hope sticks with me forever.  I think it is right on the money.  If a golf hole has a clearly define avenue of approach and/or strategy for play, it just becomes execution of the swing mechanics.  However, if different angles and avenues of approach become available different strategies also become available.  New ideas of how to play it can be tried.  Interest becomes higher and higher.  And the course will be fun and challenging to play for, essentially, eternity.  Pinehurst #2 comes to my mind with this quote.  Ballyneal.  And I hope St. Andrews Old turns out this way.

Anyway, I thought this was worth sharing...even if it might be a basic and core concept of golf course architecture.  But I guess I just don't see it employed all the time in actual golf course design.  Theory essentially doesn't intersect with reality, I suppose.

[Mac Plumart]

Hey Shivas...

I think you and I are agreeing.  It sounds like Ross is a big fan of these holes that offer options, but I don't see a whole lot of them in practice.  I say it is an instance of when theory doesn't play out in reality and you say the true state of the art hole is the one that goes beyond these rote decisions.  I am with you 100%.

And the ones that do rear their head as having true options and decisions are the great ones in my mind.

Pinehurst #2 hole #5.  Take on the bunker on the left or play it safe out right and leave yourself a LONG approach shot with a weird angle to the green.  I played it safe and couldn't pull off the approach shot.

And the holes that are not apparent how to play them the first, second, or third time are the true gems.  For instance, how the hell do you play 12 at Ballyneal?!?!?

These are the truly great golf holes.  Not the ones that simply offer one route or one option.  Right?  Like 17 at Sawgrass.  In my mind, that hole stinks.  Although I LOVE Pete Dye golf courses, I dislike that hole.

Think Kiawah Ocean hole #2.  I've played it 4 times and each time I tried something a bit different.  Still haven't parred it, but I have a few more ideas on what to try next.

Isn't this what makes the game interesting?  I think so.  And it is a big reason why I want to play Kiawah, Pinehurst, Ballyneal again.  

And I suppose my point on the post, is partially why isn't this type of thing done more often?  Is it a factor of not enough land to build enough width to make real options and decisions?  Or is it something else?

Anyway, I hope I directly addressed your question.  And perhaps clarified my point.  But really even if my point/question is unanswerable, I think the Ross quote is pretty neat.

EDIT...oh yeah, isn't there a hole at Cypress Point that you can try to drive the green over the ocean or play out left into the fairway and take two to the green.  I think it is a par 3 even.  That sounds pretty cool.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shivas - It strikes me that, while we've all seen MacKenzie's drawing of the golf hole that could be played in various ways (by golfers of varying talents), we may have all made much too much of what the likes of MacKenzie and Ross were striving for i.e. we have increasingly put the emphasis on the "strategic" nature of the options provided, while in truth I think the old guys wanted to put the emphasis simply on the "options" themselves.  In other words, I don't think the old guys were very interested in a theory/philosophy as much as they were in cold, hard practicalities -- mainly, the fact that most golfers weren't any good and so you had to leave room for them to muck about on their way to the green.  But in the name of praising great work, we've tended to overlay that work with a "significance" (strategy) instead of an "everydayness" (options-room to muck about) that misunderstands the original intentions. I think. 

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

Peter...

If I understand what you are saying, I think you have hit on another great point.

If the architect has built a course to provide the golfer with sufficient choices/options off the tee and on approaches to the green, then the average golfer can get away with mis-hits and screw-ups.  He might be trying to hit the ball down the middle of the fairway, but instead he fades it to the right side.  Perhaps on a hole that provides only one option...right down the middle...his mis-hit could be OB.  But in a course of ample width and options, he actually ends up in a fine place with a chance to attack the green for a new (and in this instance random) avenue of approach. 

Either way, it makes for fun golf.  Right?

This kind of thing makes me think of Ballyneal, St. Andrews, Augusta.  They all seem pretty wide open.

[Bill_McBride]

"They all seem to be pretty wide open..........."

Yes, but depending on today's pin location, there is probably a 20 yard slice of that wide open fairway that yields the most accommodating approach.  And it might be as close as possible to that bunker, or barranca, or OOB.

That's what strategic golf is all about, not just blindly banging one down the centerline!

[Tom MacWood]

Mac
That is good book, but its difficult to know exactly what is Ross and what is not based on the way it was edited. The manuscript was reportedly was written circa 1913. I'm not sure of the exact date without looking it up, but I know it was early in his career. And I suspect it was more an article than book manuscript. Why would he write a book that early in his career. The editor admitted he added other Ross articles too it as well, and edited all of it, so its difficult to know what is Ross, and what isn't, and at what point in his career he wrote what.

[BCrosby]

Good strategic holes are not good because they are hard to figure out. They normally present few intellectual challenges. Virtually everyone, usually on the first go-round, sees the strategic choices presented.

What makes good strategic holes good is the sweet agony of actually electing one of the playing choices they offer.

Bob

 



  

[Mac Plumart]

Good stuff guys!

Tom M...

I am glad you posted on here.  I am struck by something I've noticed in this book and some of the other Golden Age architects writings and I hope you can offer some insight.

Ross writes in the 'Are British Courses Better?' chapter the following...

"...we can certainly learn much by making our courses less artificial, for the fascination of the most famous hazards in the world lies in the fact that they were not and could not have been constructed. 

I avoid using the world "created" because a real hazard is and must be a creation of nature."

This jumped out to me as a shot at MacDonald and Raynor's style of architecture.  As CBM, traveled to the great courses of GB&I and, essentially, brought the great holes from there back with him and created/constructed them in the U.S.  Could this be a valid thought?  Was there friction between CBM/Raynor and other architects of the day?

[Tom MacWood]

According to the forward in the book it was supposed to be published in 1914, so one can assume it was written in 1913 or 1914. I doubt Ross had even seen a Macdonald design at that point.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I am curious. Why do you believe that Ross had not seen a CBM course before 1913-14? Its hard to imagine that someone with his resume as a player to that point and wuith how much he had already travelled around the country would not have played at NGLA or Chicago Golf Club.

[Tyler Kearns]

Mac
That is good book, but its difficult to know exactly what is Ross and what is not based on the way it was edited. The manuscript was reportedly was written circa 1913. I'm not sure of the exact date without looking it up, but I know it was early in his career. And I suspect it was more an article than book manuscript. Why would he write a book that early in his career. The editor admitted he added other Ross articles too it as well, and edited all of it, so its difficult to know what is Ross, and what isn't, and at what point in his career he wrote what.

Tom,

I believe Doak wrote a book pretty early in his career, and he has fared quite well. Penning a good book on golf architecture early in the career may be a springboard to future work when the portfolio is rather thin. The book serves to bring yourself to the attention of golfers and their circle or friends and on and on, all potential clients, and clearly articulates your theory of design and overall knowledge of the subject.

TK

[Tom MacWood]

In 1913/1914 Chicago GC was not the prototypical CBM course Mac is referring to, and I've not seen any reference to Ross being out in the Hamptons. In 1913/14 Ross would have been most familiar with the courses around Boston, Pinehurst and Chicago, and there were no prototypical CBM designs in those areas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I can tell you that Ron Whitten took what was to have been a Ross book and edited it mostly for length (Ross draft was wordy, reptitive and somewhat confusing, as I have seen parts of it) and tried very hard to keep it 99% authentic Ross quotes.  I don't have it in front of me, but would have thought it was later, or perhaps you are right that he supplemented it with some other Ross writings.  I am thinking specifically of his quote about bulldozers in use, which I presume had to come near the end of his career as opposed to earlier.

I suppose you put your comment up so that later on, whenever someone quotes Ross, you can say you don't think its accurate and then tell us your own "logical" conclusion.  I kind of understand where you come from (Missouri, the show me state, perhaps?) but on the other hand, all of us here know that you basically think that anything any other historian writes is 90% or more suspect, so you could save us the time of mentioning it.

[SL_Solow]

Bob;  Shivas' point has always been that making the chice among the options presented does not require much in the way of agonizing.  He has consistently suggested that after factoring in wind and other conditions, the correct option for each player is usually obvious although I think he would concede that the choice may be different for different players.  The toughest case for his position is a risk/reward hole where the calculus is very close.  But my friend Shivas can maintain his position because he always gambles regardless of the calculus so the choice is easy.

[RJ_Daley]

Honestly, these purportedly high-minded strategic decisions are pretty basic for the reasonably accomplished golfer. Wind blowing in?  Play it one way. Downwind?  Play it the other. Pin here?  Play it X. Pin there?  Play it Y. Playing soft today?  Strategy A. Firm and fast?  Strategy B. Etc. Etc.

The true state of the art is the hole that DEFIES these rote digital X and O decisions. But, indeed, they are as rare as rare gets. The truly confounding hole for ALL golfers is the do-do bird of architecture, a treasure in the truest sense of the word.  

Along with what Shel says, I think that whether it is one-way or a few apparent or not so apparent (but learned options from repeated play and discovery of nuances of a hole that offers options) the real point of good architecture or not so good, is the designer's consideration of the 'risk reward' as Shel alludes to, or percentage of making the shot selected, once the choice or desired way is chosen and attempted.  Not all choices of the desired way percentage to execute are the same.  The designer/archie that factors in not only the potential for options to play the hole according to skill and wind and other elements, is the one that seems to present the most lasting appeal to return to that course again and again, because one is left after the round with the thought of the options taken, the execution realized and the potentials to do it again, perhaps different, next time.

So, the more options, perhaps mostly given due to width, and factored with the percentage to make the shot once the option is decided (obvious or not) is wherein the greatness comes, IMHO.  

[Peter Pallotta]

If we somehow discovered that, in their heart of hearts, all the great golden age designers cared not a whit abour providing strategic options/choices (agonizing or not) but simply about offering width and bail-out room so that they didn't engender the wrath of wealthy and influential (but talent-less) golfers, would the resulting golden age classics be less good?  Would we look down our noses at the great old courses if we learned that the intentions behind their designs were so prosaic?

Peter

[BCrosby]

Shivas asks: "When was the last time a Tour player stood on the tee on the 13th at ANGC and agonized over the decision on whether to play it as a 2 shotter or a 3 shotter?  I don't recall it EVER happening"

One of the most dramatic moments in golf during my lifetime was Faldo agonizing in '96 about whether to go for the green or lay back on the 13th at ANGC.

Watson trying to reach the Road Hole green in '75 (?) (something he agonized over) gave the Open to Ballesteros.

I could go on with less dramatic examples. But a list of such moments for PGA players is not the point. It is rather that those sorts of decisions are a staple of everyday players like us on good strategic courses. Because we don't hit it as far or as straight as the pros do. We have games that make shot outcomes less predictable. The pre-shot data we have at hand is less reliable. So I'm mystified that these are no-brainer moments for you. Perhaps your risk aversion is at the zero bound.  

Having played a fair number of good strategic holes, the choices they require are not easy ones for me. Nor do they seem to be easy for the people I play with. Which is what make them great fun. Standing in the 17th fw at TOC in a round in which a high number would be disastrous, if you aren't doing a bit of soul searching about going for the green vs. laying up right side, you are playing a game with which I am not familiar.

Bob

[Sean_A]

Yes, a good head scratcher scratches your head everytime.  There are a lot of holes I still don't know the best way to play.  This is usually because my gut is saying one thing (often go for it) and my head is saying another.  Shit, there are holes at cubs where I am a member that I still couldn't say the best way to play them.  Pennard's 7th and 10th and Burnham's 13th.  I change how I play these all the time and it isn't just down to a wind aided decision.  Sorry, I can't go with Shivas on this one, besides it doesn't matter what an archie builds if one is just gonna stand there and blast away.   

Ciao     

[Mac Plumart]

Tom M...thanks.  That helps me get some context regarding the time it was written.  Maybe he didn't have a personal battle with CBM/Raynor, but perhaps he had philosophical difference with those guys.  Goldern Age architects minimalism (Behr, Mackenzie, Ross) vs. Maximalism/man-made feature (CBM/Raynor).  Who knows?  

On the other posts, I think you guys make some great points.  And I've been thinking about it for awhile.  I really think Peter has hit on a key concept and I think it ties in with basic Golden Age ideas..good architecture=fun for high handicapper and challenge for the scratch man.  Give the scratch player different choices of how to play a hole, while giving ample room for the high marker to mis-hit the ball all over the place, not loose a ball, and have fun.  I think they could be one and the same.

Here are some photos that might help clarify what I am driving at.  And, of course, I am no expert...so critiques, comments, and opinions are always welcome.


Take a look at this one...8 at Ballyneal.  Perhaps the most open hole I've ever played, that lets you choose your avenue of approach and/or slap the ball randomly down the fairway.  I think the hole is great in every way, shape, and form.



Here is a par 3 with options at Pine Needles.  Hit it straight ahead and leave yourself a lot of green to work with as you chip/pitch to the flag...or try to carry the bunkers/fade the ball on to the flagstick.  Other than the redans I've seen, this is actually a strategic par 3.



Here are two Ross par 4 holes.  #5 at Pinehurst and #4 at Seminole.  Both are the approach shots that allow you to challenge the green with an angled shot over the bunkers...but both greens are not pushovers and precise shots are required.  Or you could play out to the right and leave a pitch shot to the green with a lot of real estate to work with and no bunkers in your way.






And here is #2 at the Pete Dye Golf Club of WV.  I've seen Dye use the concept a lot and I think it is genius.  He opens up the tee shot to a variety of options for the high and low handicapper to pick and choose their best option.  This one can be a 125 yard tee shot to a very wide fairway, that will leave about 180+ into the green.  Or the golfer can push the ball further and further to the left and challenge the hole for birdie, but the forced carry gets longer and the fairway gets shallower.





And here are couple holes that I actually like because they are simply a test of your golf swing mechanics.  16 at St. Ives and 11 at Seminole.  BUT they don't really open up many options at all...hit it long and straight or pay the price.  Do it again to make the green and sink some putts.  So, I think the high handicapper won't like these holes and to Peter's point...they won't have the luxuary of slapping the ball around and getting away with it.  Great holes?  Depends on your handicap, most likely.





And my last photo for this post...

Yeamans Hall 2.  At first I thought this hole was bland and too straightforward...but thinking more about it...it has options.  This photo is of the approach shot.  I hit a 120 yard shot high arcing shot right at the flagstick that just barely held the green.  My other option after thinking about it and looking at the photo is too run the ball in along the ground.  Use the firm and fast surface to my advantage, instead of against me by hitting a high shot right at the flag stick when the greens are firm and fast as well.




And to Shivas' point, these aren't decision that take 20 minutes of hair pulling anguish and strife to make.  You take a peak, think about it, and try it.  But to RJ's point (and others), the more options available to try, the higher the interest in getting back out there and giving it another go.


FYI...Sean just posted and I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

[Scott Warren]

Mac,

I can't shake the feeling that you're so determined to "see" things in golf holes that you're making it much more complicated and involved than it is or ought to be.

Different holes will make you tear your hair more than others as you appraise the shot, some will have two very distinct options that make sense in different winds or under different ground conditions, some holes (like 17 at Sawgrass) just look you in the eye and tell you to hit the f***ing shot.

All can be great in their own right.

[Mac Plumart]

I can't shake the feeling that you're so determined to "see" things in golf holes that you're making it much more complicated and involved than it is or ought to be.

Scott...no doubt about it!!  But, frankly, that is what I do.  I over-analyze the crap out of things.  I actually enjoy it.  I'm 38...God-willing, I've got 47+ more years to live.  I've got fill my time doing something.   

[Sean_A]

Mac

The main option for YHC #2 is off the tee.  One can lay up and still be left with a shortish iron or try to rip one round the corner and hope for a good chip and a putt.  Where the flag is in the pic it is actually a no go zone for the rip round the corner unless one is picture perfect with position.  Its easy to get stuck with the bunker between you and the hole (or have too straight an angle) and as you note on firm ground this can be problematic.  The second and more cunning deal is how the green slips to the right, especially on the far right front side.  I would think from the position you show on the pic that getting close to that hole location is tough regardless if approaching on the ground or air.  The approach actually has a bit of Road Hole feel to it without being so extreme and accordingly it may be best to be short or just on the front in f&f conditions rather than risk short-siding yourself. Its a good hole even if visually a bit bland.

Scott

Thats part of making the F)P(UP(UERs think - getting in their head.  Surely you have holes which you don't really like any option.  I know you do - #10 St Enodoc.  That hole pisses you off because you can't identify an option you like.  To me this is often the mark of a good hole.  That is why #4 is great as well - the options suck and make one uncomfortable.  One could say the same for #3 and #6.    

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

That may be so. But I think there's a very fine line between the lack of attractive options making a hole great and a lack of attractive options making a hole stink.

Re: 10 and 4 at St E, what I don't like is that the obvious options are boring: three six irons at the 10th and a 4/5 iron and a wedge at the 4th. Neither of those holes - much as I have revisited them in my head, in pics, on aerials since I played them - has ever seemed to have another options that makes any sense at all.

A hole that offers two options, but one is so ridiculous that selecting it is complete lunacy, to me is as one dimensional as a hole that maps out a determined shot that you have to play.

[Pete Lavallee]

Mac,

I think the conceprt of a strategic hole was very different when Ross wrote what he did. Golf was essentially played from the same starting point in those days; first from within a club length of the hole and next from a SINGLE formalized teeing ground close by the hole. When everybody starts from the same point there is strategy because no two golfers hit the ball the same distance nor direction. Sprinlke in a few hazards and now each golfer decides how to play the hole. Take the 12th at TOC as an example. Only the A player will have the distance to carry the central bukers; but that player will have to weigh the advatage gained against the danger of being trapped. The B player will probably have to use a club other than driver to avoid the central bunkers and aim far left or right to have a reachable shot to the green. The C player may well be able to play the driver, again playing well left or right. The D player may hit straight at them and come up short. Can he now carry the bunker 30 yards short of the green? There you have it, 4 different routes on the same 330 yard hole. Now if you stagger the tees so that each player receives his allotted distance handicap, each player can make the same decision that the A player does; it eliminates the strategy and becomes a question of rote execution. Frankly, of the pictures you posted, it would appear that the 8th at BN is the only hole with any real strategy.

[Mac Plumart]

Great stuff guys...great stuff! 

Pete...what a great point you bring up..."Golf was essentially played from the same starting point in those days; first from within a club length of the hole and next from a SINGLE formalized teeing ground close by the hole. When everybody starts from the same point there is strategy because no two golfers hit the ball the same distance nor direction."

Something so basic and fundamental, but yet it changes everything.  Awesome!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()