Gimmick holes

[Steve Goodwin]

During the Players I found myself thinking about gimmick holes and ended up posting about them on my website.  Would welcome the views of GCAers.  Warning: the piece is not deep.  When I brushed up against the question of fairness, I immediately sought safer ground. 

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Funny you post this now, I just read that piece you wrote prior to you posting this.

I think "gimmick" holes have gotten a bad name over the years. Too often now I think people see holes that are not pan flat with all possible options laid out in front of them like a giant, green buffet as gimmicks. You named some of them in your piece, but I should say that several of the holes at any of the Bandon courses are "gimmicks" for those who do not understand options and thought on a golf course. Same with Pebble Beach, I guess 6, 8 and 9 are gimmick holes...

In truth though, I suspect that what we are really looking at here is another form of variety and simplicity. Sure, Mr. Doak and the rest could have gotten enough earth moving equipment to knock down the dunes on #3 at Old Macdonald but why? That adds another form of variety to the golf course.

I do think Mike Strantz went a little overboard with blind shots, Tobacco Road has maybe 11 or 12 depending on the lines you take, Tot Hill Farm has 7 or 8, Royal New Kent has 5 or 6, and Stonehouse has a few as well. But those just add to the variety and fun of those golf courses. Who says you have to be able to see the ball land every time?

[PCCraig]

Well, there is a par-3 on the Port Course at Harborside in Chicago that is in the shape of an anchor, which fits in with the nautical theme of the public facility...if that hole isn't a gimmick I don't know what is!

[Mac Plumart]

Commence to shouting me down...

6 at Muirfield.   

I'd read about how great it was and was excited to play it.  But I was let down and liked 8 and 17 a lot better.

6 is tough, but it is tough because it is gimmicky (IMHO).  The fairway is kind of a blind dogleg left and the fairway narrows in the landing area.  The blindness and the narrow (rough lined) fairway is what makes the hole difficult.  Not any strategic decision or amazing bunker or anything like that. 

[mike_beene]

Mac,the turn toward the woods makes this one of the most beautiful holes in golf.It is a good solid par 4.How is this gimmicky?

[Mac Plumart]

Mike...

I just read Stephen's article.  I think per his definition 6 at Muirfield isn't gimmicky.  But, I thought/think it is gimmicky because if the fairway wasn't narrowed in the landing area wouldn't it be just another golf hole.  I guess the narrow landing area is the gimmick...couldn't we do this to almost any hole and make it difficult?  Combine this thought process with how much "gushing" and "raving" I heard about the hole prior to playing it...and I just didn't see it and thought it was a difficult golf hole simply due to this gimmicky narrowing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Now there is whimsy and there is gimmick.  An anchor shaped bunker (or a footprint.....) is IMHO, whimsy, because the shape of the bunker doesn't really affect the play of the hole.

I think of gimmick holes as ones that play funky - dog leg par 3, for instance, although that might be just a bad hole!

Engh's 10 ft (?) tier in a green might be a gimmick, as Strantz many super long or wide greens, or the huge 18th at Indianwood.  Crossing fw.

Even then, a gimmick can be a good thing. I recently recommended a 90 yard long green to improve a short par 3 that had almost nothing going for it. I figured if the hole couldn't be lengthened, or green made smaller (tough microclimate) why not go the other way, and at least make club selection tricky.

So, a dull hole or hole with a gimmick, which is worse in that case?

[Kalen Braley]

It would seem to me that many of the examples presented in your article and in this thread bring the word "quirk" to mind.

Something different, something unusual, something not seen every day on the golf course.  In general I like quirk, although the verdict is still out for me on the 17th at TPC.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

It would seem to me that many of the examples presented in your article and in this thread bring the word "quirk" to mind.

Something different, something unusual, something not seen every day on the golf course.  In general I like quirk, although the verdict is still out for me on the 17th at TPC.

Mr. Braley, I think quirk is an overused word as well. I think the word you are really looking for is Interest. These holes have interest, something that many designers nowadays don't manage to put out there. Sure, many courses are good, but rarely do you see something fresh about them. I've played a dozen or so Fazio courses and they are fairly similar with the exception of World Woods and Edgewood Tahoe, which I played 5 days ago. (I have admittedly not played his top level works, Wade Hampton, Victoria National, Shadow Creek, etc.). But of the other courses I have played, they all feel somewhat similar. The same cannot be said for the Doak courses I have played as they all feel somewhat different.

I think the key to all these possible gimmicks is that they provide interest to the holes. Is it really a gimmick if it makes the hole interesting and still fits with the broad look of the course? I think not. The 8th green at Chardonnay in Northern California, now thats a gimmick.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I find myself wondering what it is that I have missed. In fact I wonder how I could have missed them. Have I not seen these courses, placed foot to grass (and alas ball into bunker) on a number of my home courses. Nevertheless I do not see nor accept quirk, quirky and as for gimmicky it is meaningless to this individual.

It takes some getting used to, that is the language to describe what I clearly see as nature shapes on some of our great natural courses. Perhaps it’s part of what I describe as Land Fit for Purpose or the ability of the designer to harness the natural to produce some rather great and challenging golf courses.

So please excuse me if I say I do not understand the use of such words as quirky or gimmicky as the features have been the bedrock of courses I have enjoyed over the years.

Melvyn

PS To these old ears these descriptions seem to imply a fault (albeit a good fault, but fault nevertheless), however I see not faults just some open and great courses in the land. Perhaps fault is the wrong description and imperfections more appropriate, yet I still just see Nature at work blending in with the rest of the landscape. Quirky may be a form of endearment, but gimmicky to me implies cheap/tasteless, not really something to be associated with.   

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

I find myself wondering what it is that I have missed. In fact I wonder how I could have missed them. Have I not seen these courses, placed foot to grass (and alas ball into bunker) on a number of my home courses. Nevertheless I do not see nor accept quirk, quirky and as for gimmicky it is meaningless to this individual.

It takes some getting used to, that is the language to describe what I clearly see as nature shapes on some of our great natural courses. Perhaps it’s part of what I describe as Land Fit for Purpose or the ability of the designer to harness the natural to produce some rather great and challenging golf courses.

So please excuse me if I say I do not understand the use of such words as quirky or gimmicky as the features have been the bedrock of courses I have enjoyed over the years.

Melvyn

PS To these old ears these descriptions seem to imply a fault (albeit a good fault, but fault nevertheless), however I see not faults just some open and great courses in the land. Perhaps fault is the wrong description and imperfections more appropriate, yet I still just see Nature at work blending in with the rest of the landscape. Quirky may be a form of endearment, but gimmicky to me implies cheap/tasteless, not really something to be associated with.   

Mr. Morrow there may be hope for you and I to coexist happily after all. From what is written here, you seem to be one of the first to really understand the nature of what we are looking at here. The fact of the matter is, these things that are considered quirky or gimmicky by some are simply additional interest. Some might think TOC quirky or odd because of some of the strange shots one can find; I find it to be nature. Some see the 17th at Sawgrass to be a gimmick, I see it to be fine art and craftsmanship. People only think these things are gimmicks because their minds have no other way to quantify what they are seeing. "Oh, its not flat with the options clearly spelled out as if reading a children's story, so it must be a slap-stick gimmick" they say. Well, I don't want a course to lay the options out obviously, I want them to come to me over time and I want to learn something new about a course each time I play it.

I recently watched the movie V for Vendetta again for probably the 10th time a week or so ago. Without going in depth, I had a thought about a possible element of the plot, one which perhaps even the screen writers/novelists hadn't intended to be thought of. That is a key element to a great film (not to say V is one of the best ever made, but it is certainly a deeper film than most of the slop put forth recently) and a key element to a great golf course. The ability to learn something new each time. The depth of plot to retain interest time after time, in both watching and playing. That is greatness, not quirk or gimmick.

[Michael Whitaker]

Nice article, Stephen.

Jeff - I agree there is a major difference between a gimmic and whimsy. At the Clemson University course there is a par three in which the green and surrounding bunkers form a Tiger Paw footprint. Gimmic? I say whimsy.


I don't get why you think the 18th green at Indianwood is a gimmic? It's unusual (at least in the US), but it doesn't strike me as a gimmic.

To me a gimmic is something artificial that is arbitrarily introduced into the design... like a double fairway for no apparent reason or two greens on a hole just to create word of mouth.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Michael,

Yeah, the 18th at Indianwood is a tweener gimmic to me.  Nothing wrong with the occaisional very large green to test putting, perhaps put you to sleep on the approach (although the clubhouse surrounding the green there is unlikely to make that happen!)

A gimmic can be visual difference or play difference out of the ordinary, I guess.  There is room for them now that there are 20,000 or more golf courses worldwide.  Designing with nature is the norm, but at some point, it seems inevitable from an owners standpoint to want to stand out in the crowd somehow. 

Or maybe one of the big name designers is designing his Xth course in the same market.  Maybe he/she would feel the need to vary the style to make the new owner's course a bit different.