[Greg Holland]

In the last chapter of "Some Essays on Golf-Course Architecture" by Colt and Allison, Horace Hutchinson wrote the following:

"Then a second is that you might make an occasional use of what I would call the 'bottle-neck' approach to the green, with the bottle and its neck set at something like a right angle to the direction down which the ball has to be driven.  My point is that you should so arrange the hazards guarding the green, that a man should be obliged to get his ball to a certain place down the course, so far and no farther, in-order to give himself the clear approach up the neck of the bottle.  If he did not get just to that spot, he should have a shot almost impossibly difficult to play, so as to give due advantage to the man who played accurately enough to find himself just opposite the clear neck of approach.  And I would make the green so difficult and so well guarded that ti would be virtuallyimpossible for a man to stop on it with a full shot even if able to reach it."

What are some examples of such a hole? 

How, if at all, does this type hole compare to the Bottle template holes used by MacDonald and Raynor?

[Bill_McBride]

With regard to your last question, it doesn't, as the MacRaynor Bottle hole has the bottle and neck pointed straight at the green, with hazards narrowing the fairway as you get closer to the green.

Hutchinson's Bottle is set at right angles to the line of play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Greg,

It sounds to me as if HH is crafting a hole that demands a drive to a set location, but, no further, wherein the golfer who does not reach that location will be penalized.

While it's not of the strict geometrical shape you describe, the 8th at Pebble Beach would seem to be the kind of hole he had in mind, in that the drive is limited, giving the golfer who reaches the approach to the edge, a straight in shot, but, the golfer whose drive is short and/or lacking, will have an impossibly difficult approach.

That's been my experience on # 8

[Adam Clayman]

The 10th at Riviera came to mind while reading the HH description.

[Greg Holland]

I posted this question because I am having a hard time thinking of holes that fit the description.  The ones I have thought of are 12 at Pine Valley, 10 at Riviera, and maybe 10 at Merion, but none are exactly as he describes (and would have played differently in his era than today).  Maybe architects didn't agree with his idea, so there aren't many examples? 

I have never played a Colt course, did he do any?

[Niall C]

Greg,

There's a hole on the Queens at Gleneagles (Braid and Hutchison) which is something similar with the bottleneck created by mounds on either side and which go on to surround the hole. Not quite the same as what Hutchinson describes as if you're too short or too long, you can still hit and hold the green even if you can't see it.

Carlisle also has a hole where the bottleneck is created by a gap ina bank of trees. In that instance is you don't have a direct line to the green you're not going to hit it unless you can do something very clever with the ball.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

A poor concept for a hole by Mr Hutchinson in my opinion....

Just because it has a good catchy name does not make it a good idea...

[Frank Pont]

Greg,

the 10th hole of Colt's De Pan in the Netherlands is a bottle neck hole

[Adam Lawrence]

Frank - I know what you mean, but in this context I don't think it is - the bottleneck at Pan is in a straight line, whereas the description of Hutchinson's hole has it at right angles to the direction of play.

I've seen a few right angled dogleg holes that have elements of this, though it's usually trees that create the bottleneck. There's one on the Red course at the Berkshire (the sixth) which is a very sharp dogleg and does, to a certain extent require that you hit your tee shot a prescribed distance; if too short, the trees block your approach, if too far, you run out of fairway. But it's not really the same, as there's quite a lot of scope between the two.

[Tom MacWood]

What HGH was advocating is now one of the basic principals in golf architecture. The greenside hazards are so arranged, usually one on the left front left, one of the right front, with an opening in between (the bottleneck), creating an optimum angle to the green. The bottleneck could be pointed or angled to the left side of the fairway or the right, or even the center, and if your approach does not come from the optimum angle you will be forced to carry a hazard. Part of the system is angling the green as well.

[Ally Mcintosh]

What HGH was advocating is now one of the basic principals in golf architecture. The greenside hazards are so arranged, usually one on the left front left, one of the right front, with an opening in between (the bottleneck), creating an optimum angle to the green. The bottleneck could be pointed or angled to the left side of the fairway or the right, or even the center, and if your approach does not come from the optimum angle you will be forced to carry a hazard. Part of the system is angling the green as well.

Tom,

What you describe is not how I interpret Hutchinson's quote above. What he is advocating is less about angles and more about distance control.

At least that's the way I read it...

Ally

[Mark Pearce]

The first at Northumberland GC (Colt) probably falls into this category, with the green angled to the drive and with a cavernous bunker front right and the racecourse back left (I think the 1945 aerial on Google Earth suggests that there were bunkers between the racecourse and green back then before the racecourse was widened but no-one I know remembers them).  Sadly it's now only a wedge from where even I can hit the ball, so the need to hit precisely the right bit of fairway is diluted.

[Sean_A]

What HGH was advocating is now one of the basic principals in golf architecture. The greenside hazards are so arranged, usually one on the left front left, one of the right front, with an opening in between (the bottleneck), creating an optimum angle to the green. The bottleneck could be pointed or angled to the left side of the fairway or the right, or even the center, and if your approach does not come from the optimum angle you will be forced to carry a hazard. Part of the system is angling the green as well.

Tommy Mac

ypu are leaving out the crucial apspect of the right angle in Hutchinson's description - something which sets it quite apart from the standard bunker right/left bottleneck.  This set-up places distance accuracy as a premium whereby your description is more about the angle being earned merely by being straight - a far more common design idea.

I am not sure how I feel about Hutch's concept, but it can serve a purpose of dealing with an awkward shape/length bit of land.

Ciao   

[Tom MacWood]

Given the overall context of his concept I don't read him advocating a 90 degree angle.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Given the overall context of his concept I don't read him advocating a 90 degree angle.

You could be close to right Tom... If you were to angle a green with the long axis offset at 30 to 40 degrees (let's say an average amount), then the angle from your ideal driving line has to be more... The wider the fairway and the shorter the approach, the bigger the angle... You could quickly be up to a 60 degree turn anyway...

[Tom MacWood]

What HGH was advocating is now one of the basic principals in golf architecture. The greenside hazards are so arranged, usually one on the left front left, one of the right front, with an opening in between (the bottleneck), creating an optimum angle to the green. The bottleneck could be pointed or angled to the left side of the fairway or the right, or even the center, and if your approach does not come from the optimum angle you will be forced to carry a hazard. Part of the system is angling the green as well.

Tom,

What you describe is not how I interpret Hutchinson's quote above. What he is advocating is less about angles and more about distance control.

At least that's the way I read it...

Ally

Distance controll is always a factor in the geometry of golf. If you draw line from the hole through the opening in the green (aka bottle-neck) out toward the driving zone the optimum position in the fairway changes as one gets closer/farther to the green.

You will also find the bottleneck theory used for controlling distances for tee shots, where the fairways are drastically pinched at a given distance, forcing long hitters to lay up or go ahead and attempt a very precise long drive. Charles Ambrose advocated this as way of combatting the distances new golf balls were travelling in his day. RTJ's redesigned Oakland Hills is a good example of this concept where it was used on nearly all the long holes. That bottleneck idea is more about controlling distance than Hutchinson's idea.

[Ally Mcintosh]

What HGH was advocating is now one of the basic principals in golf architecture. The greenside hazards are so arranged, usually one on the left front left, one of the right front, with an opening in between (the bottleneck), creating an optimum angle to the green. The bottleneck could be pointed or angled to the left side of the fairway or the right, or even the center, and if your approach does not come from the optimum angle you will be forced to carry a hazard. Part of the system is angling the green as well.

Tom,

What you describe is not how I interpret Hutchinson's quote above. What he is advocating is less about angles and more about distance control.

At least that's the way I read it...

Ally

Distance controll is always a factor in the geometry of golf. If you draw line from the hole through the opening in the green (aka bottle-neck) out toward the driving zone the optimum position in the fairway changes as one gets closer/farther to the green.

You will also find the bottleneck theory used for controlling distances for tee shots, where the fairways are drastically pinched at a given distance, forcing long hitters to lay up or go ahead and attempt a very precise long drive. Charles Ambrose advocated this as way of combatting the distances new golf balls were travelling in his day. RTJ's redesigned Oakland Hills is a good example of this concept where it was used on nearly all the long holes. That bottleneck idea is more about controlling distance than Hutchinson's idea.

See my response above Tom...

The modern day "pinching" of fairways is a form of bottleneck and as you say slightly different to what Hutchinson is advocating. But I don't like that concept either.

Hutchinson mentions "right-angles" although you seem to disregard it. To have this ninety degree turn, you need a very wide fairway indeed regardless of length unless he is talking about a ninety degree dogleg.

He is not merely suggesting strategic decisions to an offset green as you say in your first post. Not on the basis of the quote in the original post anyway.

[Sean_A]

Given the overall context of his concept I don't read him advocating a 90 degree angle.

I don't really see 90 degree angles for this concept either except perhaps as the perfect shot and if the green is big enough to play away from any tucked flag.  I played a hole at Prestbury where the bottle was in play, but the idea was to drive past the 90 degree angle for the best approach - quite near a water hazard.  Unfortunately, trees on the inside of the dogleg compromised the concept or made it an extreme version - depending on how one views it. 

The hole turns hard left and hitting driver for many people is very risky.  From the middle of the fairway - not the best angle.


From beynd the centre point, a few yards from the water hazard - excellent angle.


I think the problem with these holes is they can be seen as shoe horned - probably because many are.

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Given the overall context of his concept I don't read him advocating a 90 degree angle.

"Right angle" means 90 degrees.  "Something like a right angle..." is what he says.  I think this would be an unusual and awkward hole, particularly if trees define the not-too-short / not-too-long quandray.  I've played a few holes like that and they aren't much fun.

[Niall C]

Bill

I suspect that they are the sort of hole that lend themselves to particular characteristics of the site. I don't think you would build these type of holes from scratch on a relatively unencumbered site.

For what its worth, I think the two holes I mentioned at Gleneagles and Carlisle, are good holes and offer something different to whats already there. They also deal very well with an akward routing problem.

Niall

[Jason Topp]

I think this hole at the North Course of Des Moines Golf and Country Club (Dye) fits the description.  The hole runs downhill all of the way with the slope increasing (as well as sloping left towards the creek) after the corner of the dogleg:



I am not sure of the distance on a direct line to the green but I recall it being driveable.  

The hole was the first when the course opened but it apparently is now the 10th.  It is pretty awkward but does present an interesting decision off the tee.  As a kid, I always tried to drive the green and usually made bogey.

[DMoriarty]

What a strange description.   It seems like he is describing something like a cape hole only maybe with an even narrower opening.  Imagine the green was the shape of a fat bottle defined by bunkers and the neck or opening was perpendicular to the line of play.   So for the best angle the play would be directly next to the green, even with the neck of the bottle.  

Greg, While it may be similar to the cape concept, I don't think this concept quite jives with CBM's bottle concept.  As I understand CBM's concept there is a diagonal hazard or feature which narrows the effective landing area with the narrowest part offering the best angle and closest approach shot.  This creates a tension between the risk on the first shot versus the risk on the second, where to get the easiest second shot the golfer must challenge the narrowing fairway, or he can conservatively  lay back in the wider portion and then face a much more difficult shot.   I sometimes think of this type of bottle concept as a diagonal layup rather than a diagonal carry, because one has to consider how far to go up into the narrowing landing area caused by the diagonal.

A terrific natural representation of this type bottle neck concept existed on Merion's 7th hole where the fairway bottlenecked right up into the green opening.  The out of bounds formed one side of the bottleneck, and the angled slope to the right (along with bunkers at the green) formed the other.   For the best angle one had to play along the out of bounds but the further one hit it, the greater was the risk of the ball either going out of bounds or running down the slope to the right and leaving a tough angle from below the hole.  

Come to think of it, this type of hole with the narrow point right at the green does share simarities with what Hutchinson seems to be describing, but it lacks the right angle.

Here is a photo from the 1916 Amateur of the approach on the hole at Merion (then the 4th)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()