[Mac Plumart]

Let's talk about golf course tempo and your preferences.

How do you like a course to begin?

Do you have a preferred ending?

Do you have a particular way you like the course to ebb or flow?

Do you have any examples of courses the have interesting tempos?


Personally, I like the gentle handshake to start.  Now I don't want a bland hole.  But I don't want my teeth kicked in on hole #1.

Also, I do not prefer a steady diet of unrelenting difficulty...particularly if the difficult challenges are overly similar.  Examples would be water hazards, forced carries, tight fairways...things like that.

On hole 18, I don't want an incredibly difficult challenge.  Mentally I usually let down on 18 and I prefer a leisurely finish...kind of like a gentle parting handshake.


Courses that I've played that had interesting tempos included:

Harbour Town...tight feeling vibe wanting to set you free as it would reveal big and bold hazards and some open fairways...but then narrow again until the tightness disappears on the 17th green and ends with the super wide 18th fairway.

Fishers Island...gentle handshake and then BOOM you hit this epic run of holes that is close to too intense and epic and then you get a breather and then is ebbs and flows until it ends with the real neat 18th.

Dismal River...right out of the box you are overwhelmed with intimidation on 1 and 2.  Then the course normalizes and your mind is somewhat put at ease...unless the tension built up from 1 and 2 is too much to bear...then the entire round can be bamboozling.

Old MacDonald...neat cool gentlish start, then you go up and over the ridge and the journey really begins.

Crystal Downs...the transition and change in vibe from front to back nine is quite amazing and truly transformative.

Garden City...I loved the way you are taken from the hustle and bustle of the city into a secluded meadow and back again.

I'll stop now and let you all have a chance to add on, discuss, and comment.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

Mac, nice topic.

I love the start at Old MacDonald.  #1 is a fun hole - not too difficult. Par or bogey should be fairly easy to come by, but nothing that will ruin your day before it starts. #2 shows you what the next sixteen have in store.  But the tee shot on three and then the vista once you get to the crest is simply amazing.  A fun hole, the course is revealed and you are just giddy with anticipation...nothing better...

[Sam Morrow]

Mac,

 Are you really intimidated by 1 at Dismal? I love the hole but find it an easy opener and I love it because it gives you a little breathe before the tee shot on 2.

 I like the start at Colonial, nice par 5 that's not overly difficult, 2 a short par 4, and then you work your way into the Horrible Horseshoe.

[Mac Plumart]

Sam...

Regarding 1 at Dismal...I find the tee shot to be intimidating from the middle/back tees when the wind is into your face.  The stronger the wind the more intimidating it is.  Then if you don't make it up over the hill or are in the bunkers left, the blindness can get in people's heads if they aren't familiar with the course.  However, from the front/middle tees or with the wind at your back...the hole is easy and not intimidating at all..rather it is pure fun.

[Sam Morrow]

Sam...

Regarding 1 at Dismal...I find the tee shot to be intimidating from the middle/back tees when the wind is into your face.  The stronger the wind the more intimidating it is.  Then if you don't make it up over the hill or are in the bunkers left, the blindness can get in people's heads if they aren't familiar with the course.  However, from the front/middle tees or with the wind at your back...the hole is easy and not intimidating at all..rather it is pure fun.

Fun is the first word I think of when I think of that hole. Thursday afternoon I stood at the top of the hill in 1 fairway and dropped balls along the edge of the hill to see how far they would roll. I looked like a dog chasing it's tail but it was a hoot.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac - nice thread, but when I read the title I have to admit I thought of something completely different. I thought that it is a shame how dominant the following pattern/rhythm has become, i.e. Par 72, 36 out and 36 in, with the 2 Par 5s and 2 Par 3s on the front and the same on the back...a shame because, in terms of tempo as I understand it, so many courses inevitably feel the same. The same pattern/rhythm of short and long holes, almost always at the same places in the round, means that so many courses I play, no matter how different they are in other ways, all do seem to have the same basic "tempo" -- something that goes like: "Long, average, average, short, average, average, long, short, average, AND (repeat) Long, average, average, short, average, average, long, short, average".  It's like a waltz, played by the Lawrence Welk orchestra -- it does a decent job for the dancers, but never ever offers a surprise.

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

Peter...

Feel free to add tempos you'd like to see.  That would be fun to discuss.

Achasta has back to back long par 5 s on the back nine at the fartherest point away from the clubhouse on the course.  That has a cool feel.

I may get the specifics wrong on this one...but I think I've got it...Inwood has 3 par 5 s in a row followed by back to back par 3 s.  ( someone correct me if needed).

[Mac Plumart]

Peter...

Still thinking about your post.  Great one!

Might you have touched on Behr and Cranes debates?  Crane seemed to advocate the standardization of golf as a game, while Behr advocated golf as a sport...and golfers with sportsman's mindsets.  Adventure versus a predetermined experience seemed to be a defining difference in the two outlooks.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac -I'd like just about anything other than what is (in my playing experience) the overwhelmingly dominant tempo/rhythm/pattern I described above.

Here's just one example, from a course I've mentioned often, Mike Devries "The Mines". The pattern there is a (very refreshing) one:

"Average, Average, Average, Average, Long, Average, Short, Short, Average, AND Average, Short, Average, Average, Average, Short, Average, Long, Average".  A pleasant change from the usual pattern on the outward nine, and then a back nine that differs from the front. Now we're talking music -- now we're talking improvisation!

Peter

PS - Mac, just saw your recent post, and I'll have to think about that.

[Grant Saunders]

Mac

Cool topic and something I was thinking about without being able to articulate it quite as well as you have.

I am thinking of a course (Harewood in NZ. Course tour is under way) that starts out with a reachable par 5 followed by a driveable par 4. Whats interesting is being asked for heroics so early in the round. While both holes will give out pars to the player without too much drama, it is highly conceivable that both holes are birdie opportunities or even better.

Playing these both at the start of the round and walking off both of them in even par will feel as though you have squandered your chances. The reality is however that parring the first 2 holes of any round should be viewed as a solid start. I feel that how you view your efforts on those 2 holes can have a huge influence on the rest of your round as you may feel the need to force shots in the effort to play catch up golf.

The course offers up the first 6 holes where fun and enticement are the predominant theme. The next 6 holes are more of a settle in and test your mental resolve and game. The final 6 present scoring opportunities mixed with holes where shots can be lost very easily also. It is a very refreshing pace that I would liken to watching a good movie. The early scenes feature excitement to draw you in, the middle strengthens the plot and the final has the dramatic conclusion and twists to fulfill your journey.

The course opens with a par 5 and then features 3 par 5s in the final 5 holes which is certainly outside the standard configuration. If you tee of 10, you actually play 4 par 5's in 6 holes yet in no way does it detract as the holes are all very individual. The par sequence is: OUT 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4 IN: 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5

[Jason Topp]

The loop makes the old course a wonderful three part round - meat and potatoes, opportunity, meat and potatoes with a little desert opportunity to finish up. 

I think a stretch of opportunity holes strung together create unique pressure.

[Adam Clayman]

What I want is immaterial. Great and very good courses take one on a journey. It's highly likely, that exact journey hasn't been repeated elsewhere.  Each course should have it's unique rhythm. Thats what separates courses from just a collection of 18 holes.

One of the boldest routings I've seen, was at another Devries, Greywalls. Totally unique, contrarian-like overall flow.

Other great journeys, off the top of my head, that aren't everyday names on this board were at Lancaster,  Interlochen, White Bear, Eastmoreland in Portland (an urban setting crescendo), Highland Links, and of course Pinon Hills, in it's orig config.

Sfgc, CPC, Merion, Friars Head , Bn, Sleepy Hollow and PB for those that do get mentioned.

[Tim Gavrich]

There are a lot of great songs out there, and great clusters of pieces of music, but what makes great symphonies, concerts, albums is that sense of pacing. I personally lean somewhat opposed to the "gentle handshake" or "warmup hole" concept; it almost seems a concession on the part of an architect to the player who steps on the first tee completely cold. That said, I can understand it on a course where there is no range.

Color me a big fan of the back-to-back par 5 scheme. The course where I learned to play, Hop Meadow CC, finishes with back-to-back par 5s, and at another course I really like in CT, Manchester CC, all four of its three-shotters are on one end or another of a 5-5 stretch (3 and 4, then 14 and 15). Manchester CC also ends on a par 3, which I normally don't love but, in this case, it's excellent.

[Sean_A]

Tempo is a hard thing to quantify.  Its more of a feel issue which of course means it is likely highly personal.  For instance, I prefer a gentle par 4 start that can bite one in the ass unless the land calls for something dramatic (ie Machrihanish), but I have come to really like Huntercombe's opening par 3 even though that wasn't the original starting hole.  I think to some degree we adapt our beliefs to conform to the courses we enjoy.  The more varied one's tastes are the more he can learn to appreciate the individual nature of course tempo.  We all excuse shortcomings of any nature on a course we love - TOC has to be the poster child of this sort of thinking.  Just think of its first.  Nothing particularly special about the hole, but it is special because its the opening hole of TOC. 

Caravaggios's Amor Vincit Omnia encapsulates my meaning.  Golf is in many ways an idealised game where large swathes of the playing fields can be accused of being generic.  A shot of realism even in a fantasy land (see the painting) is no bad thing. 

Ciao

[Neil White]

Mac,

I reckon Notts has as good a start as any - a fairly simple non taxing par 4 followed by a slightly harder par 4 which really cranks up the decision making required off the tee and second shot and introduces you to the course good and proper and finally the third, a long par 5 which needs a good drive to set up any chance of reaching the green in three, let alone two.

Neil.

[Sean_A]

Neil - thinking on it, the flow of Notts is very good.  Well spotted.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

What I want is immaterial. Great and very good courses take one on a journey. It's highly likely, that exact journey hasn't been repeated elsewhere.  Each course should have it's unique rhythm. Thats what separates courses from just a collection of 18 holes.

What he said.  I tend to stay away from these "idealist" topics because I know that too many architects have spent too long thinking about ideals, and it makes their work boring and repetitive.

For example, if you've got a great natural feature to work with, there are a lot of architects who will save it for the climactic finishing holes.  Ideally, I will break it up and use it two or even three times in the routing if I can get away with it.  But if you're going to do that, it's much more difficult to control exactly where in the routing those times fall ... then it will be a matter of how the pieces fit together.

The aesthetic tempo of a course may or may not be the same as the golfing tempo of the course ... now that would be an interesting topic, but it would take a great deal more thought than I have time for today.

[David Davis]

For some reason I prefer to start with a shot requiring a 3 wood or hybrid off the tee. My least desirable begin would be long narrow shot requiring a driver or middle distance par 3 requiring a 4-5 iron. When the first hole is a par 5 I'll almost always hit 3 wood which sometimes takes the opportunity of reaching them out of the equation. I'm a slow starter as far as that goes. Examples where I often kick myself for hitting 3 wood would be like #1 at West Sussex, although I can reach it from the tip with 3-wood rescue, a well placed driver might leave a mid iron into this green and since it's kind of the easiest birdie chance walking off with par is a bit of a bummer. Utrecht's De Pan has a similar short par 5 which is gentle and reachable and I usually play as a 3 shot hole. Well two shots and a pitch.

These are nice starts. On my trip to the US the last couple weeks I notice that almost all holes basically asked for driver to be hit with a couple exceptions. I'd say Bandon Dunes and Old Mac call for driver, while Pacific and Trails call for a much shorter club. The other clubs called for driver off the first. (forgot to note that we were dealing with severe wind, force 6 or 7 which dictated the clubs at the Bandon courses.

The toughest start by far was at Sahalee, which called for driver with a draw off the first to get a run down the hill, tough shot for me so I played 3 wood and was left with a 7 iron in, however all the first holes were so darn narrow and full of trees that sometimes you could tell where to play to even have a chance to get through on your next shot.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

As I was thinking about this concept/thread, I recalled your comments on Augusta National and the way it's layout is almost a perfect set up for thrills and exciting golf during the closing stretch of tournament play.  This made me wonder whether an architect would incorporate specific routing/pacings/tempos for courses designed for championships rather than one designed for country club play by Mr. And Mrs. Havacamp?

Adam (and Tom)...

Your comments again seem to touch on a portion of what Peter touched on...Behr vs. Crane.  Sporting, unique, adventure versus standard, expected, common place golf experiences.  Which is why I thought the idea of discussing unique tempos/flows/routings/pacings would be an interesting exercise.  And thus far the one's mentioned seem pretty worthy of discussion.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom...

As I was thinking about this concept/thread, I recalled your comments on Augusta National and the way it's layout is almost a perfect set up for thrills and exciting golf during the closing stretch of tournament play.  This made me wonder whether an architect would incorporate specific routing/pacings/tempos for courses designed for championships rather than one designed for country club play by Mr. And Mrs. Havacamp?

Mac:

Certainly the design competition for the Olympic course was focused in part on creating an exciting finish.  Gil Hanse's winning design finishes with a short par-4 for 16, a short par-3 for 17, and a short par-5 for 18 !  That is a pretty unusual finish for a tournament course, and it will be interesting to see how it ends.  [My own design for it was somewhat similar, but we had a very long par-3 for 17, instead.]

The Augusta model would be to put those holes more in the middle of the back nine, instead of right at the end.

[Peter Pallotta]

Again, it may just be that I play many more 'standard' courses than most of you: modern courses built along well established patterns (as described above, i.e. 5-4-4-3-4-4-5-3-4, and repeat) -- but as I think about it, this factor/element is not stressed enough in discussing how a course 'feels', its rhythm and tempo. Because no matter how pretty the surroundings or how interesting the choices/options/strategies or how varied and challenging the greens, a course is bound to feel predictable (and, I'd suggest, artificial) when it follows this well-worn pattern. The course itself, as a whole, becomes a template.

Peter   

[Mac Plumart]

Would love to be having this discussion face to face.

In light of the "standard" golfer course, what do you think the impact would be on mentality, scores, and mindsets, if a course were laid out with weird mixes of lenghts and pars.  For example, a 240 yard par 5; a 500 yard par 3, etc.  You could have it all net out to a standard distance and par (if you wanted) buyt how would that one "tweak" affect golfers and their play?  I personally think many would freak out...see the PGA at AAC last yeat when they simply changed the par on 18 from 5 to 4.

Also, to spice up standard golf course design...why not include more dramatic hazards?  See Tommy N's interview for examples.  This would bring a thrill back to the game and, perhaps, instill true home course advantages.

Thoughts?

[Mac Plumart]

Brian...

I agree.  Many on this site do hole by hole comparisons to see which course is better, but I think that misses the most important aspect of a golf course.  And that is how they all fit together to form the actual course.  This includes routing/pacing/tempo/flow/feel.

[Josh Tarble]

I'm not of the opinion that a course needs to start out "gentle" in fact I like courses that start with a tough stretch. I feel like my concentration is at the highest then...if I've warmed up.

What I don't like is a course with choppiness. I don't like hard than easy than hard. I like when there are 3 or 4 hole stretches that may need your full attention or let you ease up a bit.

[Dan Herrmann]

Mac - I wrote a similar subject area in 2009 in a thread I started called, "The Journey" (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39956.0.html):

I was thinking about GCA, and I came to think of something I'll call "The Journey".

My wife was laid off earlier this year, so we're walking about 90% of the time.  The walk at French Creek is challenging, but nothing horrible (if it's not 90 degrees F).  But it has something very special  -  From the first tee to the 18th green, it's like your favorite hike - it's got views, adventure, a bit of mystery.  But when you're done, you're really glad you took The Journey.

I've never had the good luck to actually play Pine Valley, but I've walked it 3 times, and I get the same feeling - it's a real Journey.  Anther course where a course really felt like a Journey was Highlands Links.  Pacific Dunes sure qualifies.

I think a lot of has to do with hole isolation, but I think the key is that every hole has its own character.  And the occasional peek of what's ahead or what you've already experienced.

Obviously, you can have a great golf course without a Journey type of experience!

Does good golf course architecture include a sense of The Journey, or is it just serendipity when it happens?   

What are other good examples of courses where The Journey is a key factor in the architect's success?[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()