By way of introduction, I’m 45 with 3 kids, 10, 6, and 4. If there’s one legacy I wish to give my children, it’s the gift of golf, much as my father left to me. I reckon the time has come to get them on the course more, so this year we are considering joining a club for the first time. Here in Saratoga Springs, NY, there are two clubs that offer both golf and a pool: Saratoga Golf and Polo and McGregor Links. Saratoga Golf and Polo is a nine-hole course where I’ve been told there’s a 2-year wait to get on on the weekend. McGregor Links: as I have since learned, a course at least on the radar of the golf architecture cognescenti.
I, however, am not numbered amongst that esteemed body, so when I read on McGregor’s site that it was a Devereux Emmet course, my immediate response was “Cool! Who’s he?”
Google was helpful, and in following the links there, I started to pick up bits and pieces, but most importantly, that there was a site called golfclubatlas that had lots of references to Emmet, and not just that, but lots of really detailed, thoughtful, and knowledgeable references.
The other thing I learned was that there was a whole world of golf architecture discourse, a fascinating world, and one that I knew absolutely nothing about. So off to the library, where I found Geoff Shackleford’s book “Grounds for Golf”. Wow, what an eye-opener. He presented such a cogent framework for understanding a golf course, and the illustrations by Gil Hanse so clearly visualized the concepts, I felt a whole new world opening up.
Little did I know in reading that that Geoff and Gil are very prominent in the Golf Architecture world, and on this site, but that just shows how naďve I am.
Fast forward to now, and I have a question/proposal, that in likelihood has been answered a thousand times on the site, but I’m asking it anyway.
With all the talk about this best hole, that best course, etc., I started wonder is there a definitive list of qualities that when taken together, both describe a golf hole’s value, and when taken across a course, describe the course’s quality? Let me explain.
Ian Andrew, in his blog, is going through an exercise to identify the current 18 hole templates that would make up a NGLA course, if done today, post MacDonald. His first choice is the Riviera 10th. He describes the strategic elements of the hole, which I would characterize in terms of qualities as “Temptation”, “Driveable Green” (hole appears driveable), “Visible Deception” (the bunkers frame the unsafe line to the hole), “Alternate Routes” (you can lay up to the left), and “Green Difficult to Hold”, and “Approach Angles” (as we saw in the Northern Trust).
One way to look at this whole, and as I read Ian’s analysis, what he’s doing with all of these great hole templates, is that this hole delivers a number of qualities that make a golf hole interesting. If you took away the quality of “Green Difficult to Hold”, by making the green wider, reducing the tilt, or removing the mounding on the safe front left location, the hole wouldn’t be as interesting.
As many positive qualities as the 10th at Riviera has, there are plenty of other qualities that go into great golf holes that aren’t present. For example, the hole doesn’t really support “Grip and Rip”, which when all is said in done, is something fun to do on the course. There “High Penalty/Reward” quotient isn’t as strong, as say the forced carry on Augusta 15th’s approach. The “Shot Shaping” opportunity on the long drive isn’t the same as the 2 opportunities to shape shots on, as Ian calls it, “Azalea” (Augusta’s 13th).
It seems there is a list of all the qualities that a hole could possess. Some are strategic, some technical challenges or opportunities, some aesthetic, some repeat playability, but the list is distinct qualities is finite, though the combinations and degree are infinite. While each hole exhibits each quality on less or greater measure, what makes a course interesting is in how the 18 opportunities to express the qualities that make golf interesting are combined, sequenced, and balanced. As good as Riviera 10th is, 18, 3, or even 2 versions of that combination of qualities would be too much in a course.
Good courses are often described as having “good variety”, or that you use “every club in your bag”. Good courses, I suspect, also provide the variety of qualities in their holes. Many, if not most important quality that might be found in a hole is present somewhere, from “Dramatic View”, “Deceptive Distance”, and “Rewards Precision”, to “Heroic Carry”, “Blind Shot”, “Whimsy”, “Alone in Nature”, and “Clubhouse Gallery”.
My question/proposal is this: is this a reasonable way to think about golf course architecture, and if so, what are the qualities that characterize a golf hole, good and bad?
Finally, I am in awe of the great work and thought that you all put into this game, and if I am treading on well worn ground, ask that you move onto the next post.