[Dan Kelly]

I apologize for reposting this, if everyone interested in it has already read it and decided it's not worthy of any comment. It was Post No. 18 in the thread about Toughest Finishing Holes, and, like most Posts. No. 18, it drew no comment -- perhaps lost in the shuffle, perhaps justly ignored:

--------------------

I wonder if I'm correct in thinking that, speaking generally (very broad-brush here; there are obviously exceptions), architects and course owners have a bias toward a very difficult 18th hole.

He who laughs last, laughs best? Could it be that simple?

Perhaps the architects here present could relate some experiences in this regard -- with the names changed to protect themselves!

Rick Shefchik said to me, years ago -- the first time we played Troy Burne (John Fought and Tom Lehman; Hudson, Wis.) -- that he liked the 18th there because it was a hole that offered a reasonable chance at birdie ... unlike the many brutal, super-long par-4 18th holes where a guy would be much more likely to win with a par.

That struck me as right.

I don't mind slumping to the 18th tee -- but I'd prefer not to slump to the clubhouse, unless it's my own damned fault. Or, of course, unless the brutal 18th hole is a great hole. Too many of them aren't, in my opinion and (limited) experience.

My bias for 18th holes would be: par-5s and shortish par-4s.

[JESII]

It is an interesting post Dan, I haven't paid too much attention to that thread so I appreciate you bringing this one out of there.

I guess your post begs the question...is hard for the sake of hard worse than easy for the sake of easy?

I assume we aould all prefer a good hole over a poor hole.

[Carl Johnson]

. . . that he liked the 18th there because it was a hole that offered a reasonable chance at birdie ... unlike the many brutal, super-long par-4 18th holes where a guy would be much more likely to win with a par.

That struck me as right.

I don't mind slumping to the 18th tee -- but I'd prefer not to slump to the clubhouse, unless it's my own damned fault. Or, of course, unless the brutal 18th hole is a great hole. Too many of them aren't, in my opinion and (limited) experience.

My bias for 18th holes would be: par-5s and shortish par-4s.

As a recreational golfer, I'll agree.  The 18th at my home course is a relatively easy par 4 with an accurate drive, a hole I've birdied more often than any other on the course.  On the other hand, it's not without challenges, and with enough water to penalize the careless.  After 17 lackluster holes yesterday I finished with a bird on 18, and two weeks ago I picked up six skins when my opponents, both much more skilled than I am, each dumped two in the ponds.  In short, it's a short hole but a fun hole for a finish for me.  I can't say what the "pros" might think of it.

[Mark Chaplin]

I find the wonderful 18th at Inverness difficult to beat, at best a spoon and a wedge, it's as easy as it gets or it should be. However a sloping green, excellent bunkering and the razor sharp drop off and impossible chip make it a tiger of a finish.

[Wade Whitehead]

My old home course (now closed) had a finishing hole that was almost driveable, with only one or two really difficult pin positions.  It was easy by nearly any standard but provided lots of excitement in almost every round.  Playing well, you felt like you could catch another shot coming home.  Playing poorly you could salvage something.

The idea of birdie added some anticipation to any match that went late.  I'd rather have this than the threat of double bogey for some reason, at least for every day play.

WW

[Ian Andrew]

Dan,

I think many of our favourites tend to be tough strong finishers. If they are outstanding holes they often to bring the round to a crescendo at the end. It makes sense that many of the courses like Merion finish on such a high and tough note. It fits into the rhythm of the course.

But….

But at the same time I’ve played 100’s of courses where the finisher is an absolute brute with little or no architectural merit and I always leave disappointed. I always felt that it’s more important to have a stimulating finish that a hard finish. I don’t care of you give me a hard hole as long as there is some aspect that is impressive. Hard for hard sake is the worst form of architecture. I happen to think some of the famous holes like Doral’s 18th is a piece of crap whereas Olympics’ finish is a brilliant. Quality is far more important than strength.

[Kevin Lynch]

I guess your post begs the question...is hard for the sake of hard worse than easy for the sake of easy?

I assume we aould all prefer a good hole over a poor hole.

I really don't enjoy "hard for the sake of hard" as an overiding philosophy for the 18th hole.  Frankly, it was one of the things I liked the least about PGA Sunday at Whistling Straits.  When birdie is almost ruled out, I don't enjoy playing it (or watching it).

But to Jim's point, I don't think "easy for the sake of easy" is the solution (but I'd take that if it were the only two options).

Most people here enjoy "half-par" holes, and I think they are even better on a finishing hole, when you want potential "movement" in the standings.  For that reason, I agree with Dan's bias for a Par 5 or shortish Par 4, especially if it has the potential element of "big number" if you're careless (like Carl described).

I love holes with a reasonable scoring range of eagle through double bogey, primarily through risk-reward trade-offs.  Holes like 18 at Whistling Straits or other behemoth finishers really just focus on the par through double range, which does very little for me from a playing and viewing perspective.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

For about the first 50 years of the 20th century, noone cared about the 18th hole in the context that it should function as the ultimate end to the "crescendo"

Match, not medal play was the format by which most golfers played the game.

In most cases, the match was over before reaching the 18th hole, so it would seem that its significance, in terms of difficulty, when compared to the other holes, was nothing of note.

That all began to change with the marriage of television, golf and Arnold Palmer.

Suddenly, the 18th hole took on a critical role.

The thought that a golfer, especially a PGA golfer could "limp" or "safety" it home on the final hole in order to win a tournament, lost favor.  Instead, the thinking changed, whereby the 18th hole had to be a challenging hole to avoid the "limp/safe" end to a tournament.  Now, the 18th hole, under medal play format, took on a far more significant role.

Thus the trend for difficult 18th holes was born.

As Bobby Jones stated, "There's golf, and there's tournament golf"

So, the answer to your question is:

Depends on whether you're talking about "golf" or "tournament golf"

[JESII]

Really Pat,

Think about the great golf courses from the early part of the 20th century...a hell of a high ration of good hard finishing holes in there. Did the independent green committees go out in 1950 and make them more difficult?

[Kevin Lynch]

Pat,

Your thoughts about "match play" started me thinking.  For some reason, I vaguely recall reading in an architecture book that some architects looked at the 17th Hole as the one where they'd focus on the half-par, risk/reward hole (with Match Play being the reason).

Does anyone else recall ever hearing that philosophy?  Off the top of my head, the 17th at Oakmont sticks out in my mind.

[JESII]

#17 at Pine Valley is similarly short with a challenging 18th to follow.

[Gary Slatter]

The first time that I played Hamilton Golf Club (Ancaster) I noticed the 18th hole was HDCP 18 and yet the hole was a difficult 450 yard par four.  I asked how come it was the 18th handicap hole, and the pro (Dick Borthwick) explained that the club had decided that if a match came to the last hole, the best gross score should win, strokes shouldn't decide the outcome of a match that went to the 18th.   Since then I've always thought that the 18th should be a reasonably difficult hole - Dornoch, County Down,  type of hole, but not the number 1 stroke hole.

[Anthony Gray]

  As an architect I would assume you would want the golfer to finish on a high note.The clubhouse food always tastes better after a par or better yet a birdie.TOC is the best example and something to learn from.The green site is at a position were onlookers can also enjoy the finish.No body wants to leave the course beet up or start beet up by the first hole.

  Anthony

[Alex Miller]

"Tough" probably is overrated, but let's not undervalue it either. I think the half-par finisher is a wonderful way to end a course. Whether that's a short par 4 (18 at TOC), a long par 4 (any PGA tour stop), a short par 5, or even a difficult par 3 (Eastlake), a half-par finisher is what provides the drama, not the toughness of a long par 4.

[Mark Johnson]

Whatever it is, it should be entertaining for those on the patio sipping adult beverages to watch. 

I tend to like reachable par fives,  but then again i am a long hitter who tends to reach these types of hole.

[Mark Chaplin]

Gary - the English Golf Union request holes 1, 9, 10 & 18 be in the 9-12 range for stroke index. I believe this to ensure the majority of matches do not finish or have the first play off hole with a shot.

[Tom_Doak]

Back in 1910, Bernard Darwin wrote that "it is the duty of every golf course to have a good 17th hole."  [I am paraphrasing; I can't remember the exact quote, but everything Darwin wrote had a better ring to it than that.] No typo, though -- he was focused on the 17th, because it had greater impact on match play.

I've had a few clients who were more worried about the 18th hole than any other.  Michael Pascucci's preference for a short par-5 over a long par-4 at Sebonack [essentially the same hole, with the green moved back 50 yards] has been well documented, and I have to say that reaching it in two was a thrill I wouldn't have had on our original concept.  At Ballyneal, several early investors were worried I had the 18th green too far from the clubhouse; I wound up moving the entire hole about 75 yards further up the hill, the tee as well as the green.

Generally, I have not invested myself too heavily in the 18th hole; to me it is just one piece of the puzzle, and dependent on other pieces.  And probably half the time, options are limited by the selection of a clubhouse location for other reasons.

[Sean_A]

I am as much concerned the 18th finishing close to the house as anything.  Having the first and/or 18th a distance from the house is a big negative that if at all possible should be avoided.  I don't buy that an archie can't make a good hole out of whatever land (or at least it should be  a very rare occurrence) to not make the 18th near the house.  Watching play going and coming from the house is such a joy that it should be a priority to provide it - golf is afterall a social game and that should be something archies keep in mind.  In terms of difficulty, I prefer something fairly easy to par, but with some interest.  TOC's 18th is a great finisher.  However, I will accept a harder hole if it means the green is in the shadows of the house.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Watching play going and coming from the house is such a joy that it should be a priority to provide it - golf is afterall a social game and that should be something archies keep in mind.

Ciao

Sean:

That statement is the cliche about finishing holes I hate the most ... the part about the 18th green needing to be in full sight.  I just don't like anyone putting out rules like that, because the best solution will often conflict with such a rule.

I understand and agree with your goal to make a strong connection between clubhouse and course, just like we both want greens and tees to be close together.  I love courses that do this well.  A little place like Kilspindie, with its first tee and eighteenth green just a few steps from the clubhouse, comes to mind.

But, I don't care much whether the clubhouse overlooks the finishing green, because in my experience, not that many people really watch other groups finish.  No one at Pine Valley watches, for example.  No one at Augusta National watches, unless they have binoculars.  And both those courses are generally considered to be okay.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

My Club, Springdale, in New Jersey recently rerouted our golf course. Princeton University requested that we surrender the old clubhouse to them while at the same time they paved the way for us to build a new clubhouse at the opposite end of the golf course. In so doing we now have a short par four as the 18th.

There has been talk amongst the committees of extending the current 18th hole to make it a "better finishing hole".

I'll have to say that I do not agree. The golf course currently has a balance of long and short par 3's, 4's and 5's. The short par 4 that now serves as the closing hole is a well crafted one by William Flynn. Like any good short par four it can flummox and bamboozle just the same as a long par four can ask for a heroic second shot. Both are worthy hole types and I see no point in favoring one over the other as a closer.

Also, to Tom's earlier point, we cannot now currently observe the member's travails on the finishing hole from the club porch. The plan to extend the 18th would bring play right up and into what would be otherwise be a pleasant luncheon.

Bad Form! Very Bad!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Really Pat,

Think about the great golf courses from the early part of the 20th century...a hell of a high ration of good hard finishing holes in there. Did the independent green committees go out in 1950 and make them more difficult?

Jim, If you made a statistical comparison, I think you'll find that most 18th holes are moderate to benign versus difficult.

[Sean_A]

Watching play going and coming from the house is such a joy that it should be a priority to provide it - golf is afterall a social game and that should be something archies keep in mind.

Ciao

Sean:

That statement is the cliche about finishing holes I hate the most ... the part about the 18th green needing to be in full sight.  I just don't like anyone putting out rules like that, because the best solution will often conflict with such a rule.

I understand and agree with your goal to make a strong connection between clubhouse and course, just like we both want greens and tees to be close together.  I love courses that do this well.  A little place like Kilspindie, with its first tee and eighteenth green just a few steps from the clubhouse, comes to mind.

But, I don't care much whether the clubhouse overlooks the finishing green, because in my experience, not that many people really watch other groups finish.  No one at Pine Valley watches, for example.  No one at Augusta National watches, unless they have binoculars.  And both those courses are generally considered to be okay.

Tom

Sometimes good design is a cliche.  I wouldn't say a connection between course and house is a rule or essential, but there is no way I would fault an archie for making a huge effort to do so.  Starting and finishing near the house is good design period.  To me its more a question of why would you not want to and what is to be gained because its a serious blow to the routing if the house is isolated.  The proximity may not provide for the best hole (again, in this day and age I fail to see how a good archie can't create a good hole from practically any piece of land), but the best holes don't necessarily translate to the best course.  Every club I have been a member of where the first and/or the 18th (9th and 10th or whatever as well) is easily viewable has plenty of folks looking on.  In general, I think golfers like to see their mates and fellow members hit a shot or two from the comfort of a good vantage point.   I would also add that in general folks don't have a clue if a better hole could have been built with the sacrifice of proximity to the house and you wouldn't find many that would think its good to start/finish a hike from the house.  

Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

There's nothing wrong with "tough" for a finisher, or for any hole on the course for that matter.  But while tough is fine, I think penal is not.  What would be the problem with a par 4 that is long and plays into the prevailing wind such that few will reach it in two?  That's tough, but so long as its not excessively penal I have no issue with it.  That's a great way to mess with people's minds, and create an advantage for golfers who are not tied down thinking about par that they refuse to consider playing that hole as a par 5.

What I generally dislike is the HUGE overuse of water and OB on the finishing hole of seemingly the large majority of courses built in the last 40 years.  Water is fine if you are lucky enough to be designing a course alongside the ocean; you want to make that finisher dramatic, I understand.  But the finishing hole that's a long par 4 or a par 5 with the man-made water hazard down the left is such a lame cliche, it is right up there with the drop shot par 3 over the water that is often pictured on a course's web site as the "signature hole".  It only gets worse when quite often the hole is a dogleg left wrapping around that water hazard, and there is OB down the right to "protect" the houses crowding close to the fairway for a nice view of the hole and the water.

This type of formula design does a massive disservice to the minority of architects who let the land dictate for them how the course will finish, and/or dare to have an original thought regarding the finishing hole.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I am as much concerned the 18th finishing close to the house as anything.  Having the first and/or 18th a distance from the house is a big negative that if at all possible should be avoided.  I don't buy that an archie can't make a good hole out of whatever land (or at least it should be  a very rare occurrence) to not make the 18th near the house.

Sean,

I tend to agree with you, but how do you square this view with your stated dislike of the 18th at my beloved Reddish Vale?  The 18th green lies just below the clubhouse but at the top of a steep 100ft climb from the fairway. If the green was to be in the proximity of the house it is difficult to see how the climb you so hate could be avoided.



Perhaps the green at the bottom of the hill and a ski-lift back up to the clubhouse?

[Sean_A]

Duncan

Its far better to play up the hill then it is to just walk it to get back to the house. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()