[Scott Warren]

Having played a few of the MacRaynor courses now as well as the original Eden and Redan holes, I feel as though I "get" the notion of what makes an Eden, Redan or Biarritz good, bad or indifferent as a hole of that style.

The Short seems more of a mystery to me, largely in the sense of what makes a hole a good Short? (which is a different question to "is it a good hole?"*)

Pictures are encouraged -- showing both good and bad examples.

What is a Short aimed at achieving/examining?
What makes a Short a good example of the template?
Is there a stock yardage and/or elevation change that is preferable for a Short?

*an example of this would be the Eden at Fishers Is. and the Redan at Yale -- both are great holes, IMO, but not great examples of the template

[Jim_Kennedy]

What is a Short aimed at achieving/examining?
What makes a Short a good example of the template?
Is there a stock yardage and/or elevation change that is preferable for a Short?

*an example of this would be the Eden at Fishers Is. and the Redan at Yale -- both are great holes, IMO, but not great examples of the template

From the 1999 "Feature Interview" w/George Bahto

"...we will start with the so-called ‘Short’, a fairly generic par-3 common to many courses in the British Isles long before Macdonald began his quest for the better holes in Europe. The ‘Short’ specifically tests the skills of the short-iron game. Macdonald always felt there was room for improvement in a golf hole, so he (and later Raynor) surrounded his versions of this genre’ with a sea of sand – elevating the green to make the target more dramatic and intimidating. These Shorts were nearly always drawn as a squarish looking green with a larger surrounding enclosure indicating sand bunkering. The bunkering details would then be developed during the construction phase. Short hole putting surfaces were generally much wider than deep, containing strong undulations befitting a shorter hole. A horseshoe feature with the open end facing the tee or a rounded dished depression were mainstays of design. Two of their finest examples can be found at the wild 6th at National and 10th at Chicago Golf Club (where two depressions are separated by a ridge). The origin of the Macdonald/Raynor Short was the 5th at Brancaster. He favored this particular version over the 8th at St. Andrews because the tee-box was higher and afforded a clearer view of the green. Shorts were generally constructed 135 to 145 yards long but often clubs incorrectly added back tees in a pointless effort to gain yardage on the scorecard."

[Sean_A]

I wonder if Brancaster's 4th used to use a higher tee somewhere.  The tee is elevated, but not to a degree where I would say the green is made clearer than TOC's 8th.  Indeed, its hard to fathom how both these holes could be seen as similar.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
If it used to be the 5th maybe there was a higher tee when CBM saw it.

I didn't read George's explanation as saying that those two holes were similar, the opening sentence labeled all "Short" holes as a generic type commonly found in the BI.

[Carl Rogers]

Should hole sequencing be part of the discussion?  Or types of terrain? Or the 'Short" as a bridge across difficult terrain

[Scott Warren]

Jim,

Thanks for the grab from that interview.

So taking this as the nuts and bolts of the template:

The ‘Short’ specifically tests the skills of the short-iron game. Macdonald always felt there was room for improvement in a golf hole, so he (and later Raynor) surrounded his versions of this genre’ with a sea of sand – elevating the green to make the target more dramatic and intimidating. These Shorts were nearly always drawn as a squarish looking green with a larger surrounding enclosure indicating sand bunkering. The bunkering details would then be developed during the construction phase. Short hole putting surfaces were generally much wider than deep, containing strong undulations befitting a shorter hole. A horseshoe feature with the open end facing the tee or a rounded dished depression were mainstays of design.

would it be true to say a "pure" Short:

1. Plays downhill,
2. Measures <150 yards,
3. Has a wide, shallow target,
4. Has a segmented putting surface, by horseshoe, dish, thrumbprint or other means,
5. Has a large amount of sand around the green, but not necessarily in a specific pattern or arrangement.

?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

That wonderful tradeoff of easy distance, but severe penalty if you miss.

[David Harshbarger]

The Short at Yale has the island in a sea of sand green, but I think it was deeper then wide.  The green was definitely a rectangle but with a strong back to front slope.  The tees were elevated, too.  Great hole, as #5, where you see a target surrounded by wide sand traps deep below the green.  Very well composed to bring a scrunch to your face.

[Scott Warren]

Dave,

My recollection is also of a 'deeper than it is wide' green sloping fairly significantly to the front.

Not a great pic, but does demonstrate that a bit:


National's certainly fits the description posted above by Jim more than Yale's hole:


And considering the above from Jim, I think Fishers island's is a really good example, though I have heard it criticised in some circles:

[Mike McGuire]

Jim,

Thanks for the grab from that interview.

So taking this as the nuts and bolts of the template:

The ‘Short’ specifically tests the skills of the short-iron game. Macdonald always felt there was room for improvement in a golf hole, so he (and later Raynor) surrounded his versions of this genre’ with a sea of sand – elevating the green to make the target more dramatic and intimidating. These Shorts were nearly always drawn as a squarish looking green with a larger surrounding enclosure indicating sand bunkering. The bunkering details would then be developed during the construction phase. Short hole putting surfaces were generally much wider than deep, containing strong undulations befitting a shorter hole. A horseshoe feature with the open end facing the tee or a rounded dished depression were mainstays of design.

would it be true to say a "pure" Short:
5. Has a large amount of sand around the green, but not necessarily in a specific pattern or arrangement.

I'm thinking grass bumps or hollows

[Scott Warren]

That would be a cool twist on a Short or Redan, Mike! (they'd be better with sand though )

[David_Elvins]

this thread is good excuse to link to this great photo from Ran's review of Seepy Hollow. 



The short hole seems to look best on windy sites and I suspect that a bit of wind realyl brings out the best in these holes. 

[Michael Whitaker]

Sleepy Hollow has the best short I have played to date.

[Scott Warren]

It does looks pretty bloody good from here. How long does it play?

[Bill Brightly]

One of the things I have noticed is that the Short is almost always located on one of the most dramatic parts of the property, with an elevated tee and a great view behind the hole. Sleepy Hollow is the best example of this. When Banks routed Hackensack, our Short greensite looked down on the Oradell Reservoir in the distance. Not quite the same as the Hudson River...but you work with what you have.

That observation has led me to believe that "finding" the par threes was a priority for Macdonald, Raynor and Banks, and the other holes followed from there. I can't prove that, but it is the sense I get when I look at the greensites and try to envision the property before the course was built.

[David Harshbarger]

The Short at Yale doesn't fit the great panorama mold. I think it is more of a breather hole after the opening sequence.

[PCCraig]

Generally speaking, I think what makes a short hole great is essentially the same things that make other MacRaynor template holes so great. Mainly the way the architect fit the template into the best and most interesting piece of the property (for that particular template) and the template's setting. I also enjoy that the hole is short and the green is generally a big target, and in modern times rarely more than a wedge, but greens on a short are usually such that you need to be on the right portion of the green. So perhaps what makes it so great is that the hole can lure you into a sense of attack, but if you don't hit a good shot, the hole can beat you up quickly.

Here's the short from Shoreacres, which plays down into a ravine:

The downhill nature of this Short hole makes distance judgement quite tricky. Also, Lake Michigan is only several hundred yards away so the wind is always a factor.

[Phil McDade]

The Short at Raynor's Blue Mound, in suburban Milwaukee, from a thread a couple of years ago. The first picture flattens the look of the hole; it plays at least one club shorter than the distance because it's downhill (and also often plays with the prevailing wind behind the player -- it runs due west -- making club selection here tricky. It is a very large green.

#7 (par 3, 167/140 – Short)
Raynor courses almost always feature a Short, and Blue Mound has a very good one, faithful to the hole’s strategy. The tee shot is downhill (at least a club less than usual) to the largest green on the course. Sand completely encircles the green.


Another look at the green, and the distinct thumbprint in the middle. Again, Raynor made this green large enough to have pin positions in several locations both inside and outside the thumbprint.

[Mac Plumart]

Great thread.

What if I offered a slightly different spin on this.  A great "short" hole is made great being part of the bigger whole.  That is, as George says, it is designed to test a golfer's skill with his short irons, while the other templates used are designed to test other aspects of a golfer's game with the end goal being to provide a complete test of a golfer's game.  In fact, this concept is why I think the templates work in a timeless sense.

Other than that, I think many of the answers above hit on all the important aspects within the "short"'s specific criteria/tests.

Again, this is a great thread.

[PCCraig]

Phil,

Good call on the short at Blue Mound, a nice hole. But I have to ask, is it still a "short" if it's 170 yards?

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott - I have been racking my brain trying to remember an old thread (with photos) on a course in England.  The photo was of a lovely Par 3 with a small green surrounded by sand, that sat just in front of a classic old clubhouse.  This post is useless -- but I hoped that someone might be able to know/guess what hole and course I'm thinking of.  When I first say it, I thought it was the near perfect short hole.

Peter

[Bill_McBride]

Jim,

Thanks for the grab from that interview.

So taking this as the nuts and bolts of the template:

The ‘Short’ specifically tests the skills of the short-iron game. Macdonald always felt there was room for improvement in a golf hole, so he (and later Raynor) surrounded his versions of this genre’ with a sea of sand – elevating the green to make the target more dramatic and intimidating. These Shorts were nearly always drawn as a squarish looking green with a larger surrounding enclosure indicating sand bunkering. The bunkering details would then be developed during the construction phase. Short hole putting surfaces were generally much wider than deep, containing strong undulations befitting a shorter hole. A horseshoe feature with the open end facing the tee or a rounded dished depression were mainstays of design.

would it be true to say a "pure" Short:
5. Has a large amount of sand around the green, but not necessarily in a specific pattern or arrangement.

I'm thinking grass bumps or hollows

Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor!   

[Bill McKinley]

Fox Chapel in PA...

[Ian Andrew]

I'm assuming this not about Macdonald's short only ...

Why the hole type is great:

The hole represents clear opportunity for all. There is no other hole in golf where the expert and duffer stand equally on the tee thinking only of one perfect swing. It is the only hole in all of golf that offers all levels of player a realistic opportunity at making a birdie. Even the weakest player only has to make one good shot followed by the putt for a birdie. It's the best chance they have on the round. 

From an architect's perspective:

Since the player stands on the level tee with the advantage of a perfect lie, it's now reasonable to request a near perfect shot. The great ones have the potential for disaster built into them. If you make the shot, a great chance of birdie, but if you miss you may have a really hard time recovering for par.

That's what I think makes them great...

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

Good call on the short at Blue Mound, a nice hole. But I have to ask, is it still a "short" if it's 170 yards?

Pat:

Strictly a guess, but I'd think for most members, that's a 7-iron or less. It really does effectively play one club shorter, maybe even more, given the day's wind conditions. I would say it rarely plays into the wind -- maybe a cross-wind from the left side as you're standing on the tee, but usually with some sort of helping breeze. I'm really short, and I'm not sure I'd go at that with anything more than a 7-iron even from the tips. For members play at anything less than the tips (@ 140 yds), that's 8-iron or less? For the Amateurs who played it last year during UW Am alternate-course play, I'm guessing it saw a lot of 9-irons.

What's the length at Shoreacres? That looks at least a club shorter?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()