How important is the first hole in a designer's idea for the course?

[mike_malone]

 I was thinking about Flynn's openers as I played Manufacturer's yesterday. This is one of his most dramatic. It has a significant drop from the tee to the landing area and a nifty front to back slope to the green. It seems most of his openers are downhill which makes sense going down from the clubhouse. Manny's is short as are HVGC and Lehigh, I think. But HVGC has raised the green quite a bit and I recall that Lehigh had a small rise in front of the green to deter running it on. PCC is actually the current #4, one of my favorites there. It plays downhill with a slight dogleg to the right and has another front to back green. Rolling Green and Lancaster are down to the landing area but up to the green with Lancaster's having nice internal sloping and RG has a devilish disk on its side.

   My conclusion is that Flynn starters are designed for the specific place. Each has a character that introduces you to things to come.


  An  interesting routing note from yesterday was that we played 8 holes before encountering our first of 5 par threes since we started on #14.

[Jim Eder]

For George Thomas the first hole was very important.

[Adam Clayman]

Mayday, I think you hit it on the head when you used the word introduce.

I don't believe there should be a formula on what constitutes an opener, but, I would think it would be hard to go anywhere, if you started with the very best hole on the course.

Since many courses have a reversed configuration, from their original iteration, there are very few where this has been accomplished successfully. ANGC, being the prominent one that comes to mind. 

Another issue that would dictate the quality of the first is where the clubhouse is located. Pinon Hills is one where the placement of clubhouse was questionable, but then Ken Dye did an admirable job in creating an exciting 18 hole experience. Sadly, only to have someone come along and reverse the config, making the journey disjointed and without the almost symphonic build up it has in the original config.

[mike_malone]

 I hear much about the concept that the first should be easy to get you into the round. That seems to be a bad idea to me. I would rather get a feel for what is ahead.

[Mark Saltzman]

I don't believe there should be a formula on what constitutes an opener, but, I would think it would be hard to go anywhere, if you started with the very best hole on the course.

I've actually found that in many cases the first hole is the best (or amongst the best) hole on the golf course.  This probably fits with the idea of 'easing' the golfer into the round.  As a result, the first hole is often not overly long or demanding off the tee, but it does provide a challenge (and reward) for a player being aggressive right off the bat. 

AAC is one course that is an example of this (I really liked the first hole), though it is not indicative of what was to come.  While the rest of the course is quite difficult and often lacking in options, the shortish first asks the player how aggressive he wants to be at the start of his round.  Other examples are the first at Granite Club in Toronto and the first at Shepherd's Hollow north of Detroit.

Slightly OT, but related to the first not needing to be difficult and thus providing for more options, I often find the 18th being the worst hole on a golf course often with some sort of forced looking risk/reward decision or out of place water hazard.

[Matthew Petersen]

I like a first hole that can ease a cautious player into the round, but could also give a reward to a player willing to take risks right off the bat.

The first example that comes to mind is the first at Southern Dunes in Maricopa, AZ. It's a shot-to-mid-length dogleg right (420 from the tips). There's a deep bunker at the corner of the dogleg and one at the far edge. It's simple enough to play a fairway wood off the tee to the corner and have a mid-to-short iron in to a green protected with deep bunker on each side (really kind of front-right and back-left). Or if you want to live dangerously you can try to bust a drive over the bunker at the corner, which would leave you a wedge in from a nice open angle where the greenside bunkers are less of a concern. But if you don't clear the bunker, you're dead,or if you block it right you could end up in some tall native grasses.

It's not a huge strategic hole, but it fits the course and does offer a nice safe option where you're not really having to make forced carries ... or the chance to try something inspiring, right off the bat.

[Phil Benedict]

On what courses is the first hole one of the best 2 or 3 holes on the course?  I don't get around that much but I can think of a few - Pine Needles, maybe Yale.  I know this is totally subjective but I love playing these holes and being the openers probably enhances their appeal.

[Chris_Clouser]

I think that the opening hole at Crystal Downs is one of the best two or three holes on the course in my mind.  It is the best opening hole I have played.  It's tough and gives you an idea of what lies ahead. 

[mike_malone]

 The old expression that "you only get one chance to make a good impression" holds for me. If the first hole isn't like an overture then I'm lost.

[Adam Clayman]

Mayday, Agreed. The green complex should reflect the challenges you will face throughout the round. Leading up to the green should be a subtle intro to those challenges.

[Tom_Doak]

To me, the first 2-3 holes of the course are very important as a group ... by then, most people will have decided if they love the course or not.  But the first hole, by itself, is not so crucial.  There are lots of very good courses with unmemorable opening holes.

[Bill_McBride]

For George Thomas the first hole was very important.

Like Mackenzie, a number of his courses start with rather benign par 5's - to get the round underway without a formal warm up area?

[Jim Eder]

Bill,

I can't remember if that is the reason but it makes sense.  Bel Air didn't have a practice facility (range) in the old days and I believe Riv did not either (the current range was I believe a par 3 course). Others on the site know the history better than I but your idea makes sense to me.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

I can't remember if that is the reason but it makes sense.  Bel Air didn't have a practice facility (range) in the old days and I believe Riv did not either (the current range was I believe a par 3 course). Others on the site know the history better than I but your idea makes sense to me.

The original LaCumbre in Santa Barbara also started with a par 5, the current 10th hole.  The first at Stanford is a cool par 5, also from an elevated tee like Riviera, Bel Air and LaCumbre.   Ojai has been rerouted so many times I don't know what the first hole was in the day.  Tommy?

[Jim Eder]

Bill,

Very interesting on LaCumbre, I did not know that. I hear you on Ojai, it will be interesting to see if it did start with a 5. I should dig into the excellent books Missing Links and Lost Links by Wexler and see about El Cab (the original) and the other one I think that was in Culver City (my memory is failing me on the course name).

On Stanford I always wondered how much Thomas did there as he was pretty ill at the time and whether it was mostly Bell. Did Thomas do number 1 or did Bell take Thomas' idea of the "warm up" hole. I have to think about the Bell courses and whether they start with 5s but I don't think he did that.

Thomas would start with the "warm up" 5 as the first but would usually hit hard with a tough 2nd hole.

BTW I love the Stanford course.................

Thanks for the info Bill.

[Jim Eder]

Bill,

Do you know if LA North's number 1 was done by Thomas or was it the original Fowler hole.  Thomas changed a lot there so my guess it was Thomas as it fits his mentality about the starting hole. I have the club history but at a different house than I am in right now so can't dig into it. Thanks

Jim

[Matthew Petersen]

To me, the first 2-3 holes of the course are very important as a group ... by then, most people will have decided if they love the course or not.  But the first hole, by itself, is not so crucial.  There are lots of very good courses with unmemorable opening holes.

Pebble Beach and Cypress Point spring to mind.

[mike_malone]

 I'm interested in how #1 introduces the theme of the course. I should give a negative example. For me, #1 at Scotland Run, a course I enjoy, doesn't give one an idea of what is to come. It neither is shaped by the trees nor hints at the sand pit carries to come. It doesn't have a strategic drive as much of the rest of the holes and also lacks interesting hazards at the green. Indeed, the putting surface is only mildly interesting.  So, it isn't until #2 that one begins to see the designer's idea for the course. Here is a strategic drive to a dual green complex. Suddenly, my interest is piqued.

[mike_malone]

 Rolling Green is the course I know best. #1 says "be mindful of which side of the fairway you aim based on the pin location". Then the green alerts you that putting will be a veeeery important part of your day. So, I walk off #1 with an idea of a course that will stress the short game but allow for mishit tee shots. What is missing on #1 is the angled green sites seen throughout that are to follow. That is soon shown on #2, #3, and #4 immediately. So, I guess it isn't necessary for the whole portfolio to be reflected on #1.

[Tim Gavrich]

I don't know if I'd agree that #1 at Yale is one of the 2-3 best holes there but nevertheless, it is an excellent introduction to the whole aesthetic of the golf course, which is tremendously important at a golf course with such a hugely strong aesthetic as Yale's.

If you want a CB Macdonald/Seth Raynor course where the opener is one of the best couple holes, almost without any possible argument, it's Old White.  I don't know of many better opening holes than it.

In a few of Ran's profiles of courses on this site, in the case of courses that begin with especially long par fours or par fives, he seems to emphasize the way in which such holes are good because they bring the player away from the clubhouse quickly.  I would agree, citing Pine Needles, Sunningdale Old, Newport Country Club, Shelter Harbor, and Hartford Golf Club among the cream of golf courses I've played.

[Michael Goldstein]

I think it is important for great courses to impress early on.  A round is too short to put up with a number of warm up holes (maybe more courses could follow the lead of Sage Valley).

Perhaps my favourite opening hole is at Balgownie.  It plays out towards the ocean, is breathtaking and a sincere (but fair) test on all accounts.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom Fazio told Steve Wynn before agreeing to do Shadow Creek that he didn't like to work for guys like him. They wanted the best 18 holes right out of the box, and that, by the 4th not only will the golfer be overloaded, but so would he.

The best courses are journeys that have an ebb and a flow. That's what's wrong with those who evaluate each hole, and if there are not 18 world beaters, it's somehow not as good. I say Bullshee.

Of the 50 or so great courses in the world, which ones have 18 great holes?

If you start at great there's just nowhere to go.

[Peter Pallotta]

Well said, Adam - spot on.

We've all watched many movies that start off well and work well for about an hour or hour and a half and then fall apart at the end, or at least don't live up to the promise of the beginning or manage to meaningfully complete the story. That failure is no accident.  It occurs because the basic drama as laid out in the first 15 minutes proves not to have the legs or inherent momentum to carry through to the end; in other words, what seems like a great idea for a movie actually isn't -- it's just an idea, one that the writer/director fell in love with too early in the process, and one that a more talented and thoughtful writer/director would've realized could not sustain a movie.

If I was a developer and heard an architect say "I've found a great opening hole" I'd be worried.  I'd think that he wasn't seeing the bigger picture, or hadn't thought out carefully enough the routing (i.e. plot), or at worst was trying to pull a fast one by trying to razzle dazzle me for the first few holes in the hopes that I wouldn't notice how boring the rest of the course would be.

I think it was Paul Newman who said: "Nothing is as important as the first 15 minutes of a movie...except for the last 15 minutes of the movie".  I think he could've/should've added "And the 15 minutes that come in the middle". 

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

Have you ever seen a great movie where the first 15 minutes made you fall asleep?  

I do agree with Adam's premise.  Machrihanish is the perfect example.  They used all the coastline and the big dunes at the beginning of the round, so there was no way the back nine would be as good.  If you could mix up the same holes in a different [but impossible] sequence, it might be on all the top 100 lists.

[Bill_McBride]

Peter:

Have you ever seen a great movie where the first 15 minutes made you fall asleep?  

I do agree with Adam's premise.  Machrihanish is the perfect example.  They used all the coastline and the big dunes at the beginning of the round, so there was no way the back nine would be as good.  If you could mix up the same holes in a different [but impossible] sequence, it might be on all the top 100 lists.

Same with Spyglass, which somehow is still very highly ranked.