News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
"If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« on: March 08, 2013, 12:43:23 PM »
So wrote Brad Klein in Golfweek Oct 2010 edition.  He went on to say, "On the course everything should be self evident, whether it is how a hole plays or where the next hole is."

On the surface I agree.  But isn't there something interesting about a hole that takes a while to understand?  There are still some holes at Ballyhack that I am learning how to play.  Sometimes a hole gives the player differrent options that can be best understood only after playing it a few times. Fifteen at Ballyhack is one such hole.  You can try and hit the "front porch" with an iron or hit a driver left of it.  I still am experimenting on that hole.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 01:05:58 PM by Tommy Williamsen »
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2013, 01:00:13 PM »
Tommy,

Can you please reference the specific article you are quoting from? I want to see the context. Thanks.

BSK

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2013, 01:04:19 PM »
Tommy,

Can you please reference the specific article you are quoting from? I want to see the context. Thanks.

BSK

It was the article "How do I get my course nationally ranked.." October 29, 2010
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2013, 01:07:38 PM »
http://golfweek.com/news/2010/nov/01/how-do-i-get-my-course-nationally-rated/

Quote:
There’s nothing worse than a hole that’s so confusing that you need to see it on a GPS monitor to figure out where it’s going or what the options are. If a hole is that complicated, it’s probably worth redesigning. On the course, everything should be self-evident, whether it’s how a hole plays or where the next hole lies.

Also, a pleasant greeting from the starter is fine, but spare us the long litany of rules, explanations and elaborations.


I don't think Brad replied the last time this question was posed.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46379.0.html
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 01:14:16 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2013, 01:14:07 PM »
I'll stick with that. My comparison was to gazing at a GPS yardage board all day on the cart to figure out where you're going. If you want to carry this over to the PGA Tour pro mantra of "everything should be right out in front of you" I guess my words stand accused of being so (mis)interpreted. Since there's a pretty good track record of my believing in intrigue, I think it clear to those who have read me over the years that what I'm trying to avoid is dumb-stupid ass goofball holes done in the name of "interest." There's a lot of that out there, unfortunately. That doesn't mean I believe in eliminating subtlety.

By the way, that quote about "if a hole needs explaining" is from Bill Coore, though the context for that was that if you need to explain whether a hole works and how it came to be that way because of budgets, permitting, wetlands,  etc . . ."
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 02:34:30 PM by Brad Klein »

Peter Pallotta

Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2013, 01:16:04 PM »
Brad - in my opinion your bona fides re strategic golf are still in tact, not in tatters. I've often made the point that i think we tend to confuse playing options and choices on a given golf hole with complexity - as if having to take a whole amount of time to figure out the puzzle/nuances necessarily and in and of itself either supports the 'strategic' tag or refutes it. (I still can't remember the last time a golf hole, any golf hole, has taken my more than 30 seconds to 'figure out', i.e. figure out, that is, for my personal and specific skill level and given the conditions - wind, turf, etc -- on that particular day. Given those variables, a good golf hole can continue to provide interest and varied challenges/choices on repeated play, regardless of whether or not I was able to quickly see the options/choices the first time I played it.)  Plus, clever writer and thinker that you are, you know that being "self evident" is a heck of a lot different than "being all out in front of you"! :)

Peter
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 01:50:23 PM by PPallotta »

Joey Chase

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2013, 01:37:01 PM »
Brad,
On this point, I agree with your explanation.  I recently played Southern Dunes, when I asked for a course guide, the starter told me I didn't need one, it was on the cart.  There really is nothing worse than looking at a computer screen on a cart for directions throughout the round.  I enjoyed very much the course, but this was a major turn-off.  It was necessary to really examine the guide to see where to play and how to play on several holes as there was a lot of bunkering that obscured the playing corridor.  I should admit that the others in the group were not nearly as bothered by this as I was by this.  As if cart golf wasn't annoying enough, now we have to look at a computer in order to play the golf hole?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2013, 01:46:33 PM »
This thread reminds me of the blind shot posts you find on courses across the pond. What does Brad think of them. GPS, before GPS?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2013, 01:57:07 PM »
Here’s my issue with that idea:

I have stood up in from of members at St. George’s Golf & Country and Park Country Club to explain why there was nothing wrong with each of their respective very long par and very tough threes. In both instances I talked about the difficulty of the full shot, compared to the relatively straightforward nature of intentionally playing short and wide and how the next shot is relatively easy.

In both cases members indicated they had never considered that line of play. It’s a bit counterintuitive since we think we should play to reach the putting surface.

I don’t think either play is obvious, but both work if you’re willing to try. In match-play I’m 3-0 at the Park CC because this works so well on a green ringed on three sides by the river where all misses are bad.

Interestingly, if everything is obvious about a course from the outset, I generally have no desire to return. I’m more intrigued when I’m quite certain I completely missed something or made a horrible decision.
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2013, 02:03:39 PM »
I didn't  begin this thread to pick a fight witth Brad.  That's not my style.  But his thought is something I hear from guys on a regular basis.  
I agree that some hole can be so complcated that you can't figure it out at all.  But then therre are some holes, to use Brad's words, that arre so "intriguing" that afater the first time you play it you replay it because you understand it better.  Some holes, like 15 at Ballyhack, do need some explanation or experience to fully understand it.  I felt that way about most of the holes at Royal County Down.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 08:50:49 PM by Tommy Williamsen »
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Peter Pallotta

Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2013, 02:20:23 PM »
Tommy - I didn't think you were picking a fight with Brad, and I hope I'm not either (even if I'm inadvertently putting words in his mouth in support of his views). So, speaking for myself: I do think many people tend to describe good golf holes AS IF an individual golfer on a given day and in specific weather conditions is standing on a tee and making choices for ALL golfers on ANY day in EVERY kind of weather.  And I think therein lies the confusion I referenced earlier.  That a golf hole plays differently and requires/offers different choices and options for different golfers on the same day, and for the same golfer on different days, doesn't necessarily mean that its qualities/options "need explaining" or that they are not almost immediately "self evident".

A minor point, a quibble really -- but I do think worth pointing out.

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2013, 02:22:32 PM »
Here’s my issue with that idea:

I have stood up in from of members at St. George’s Golf & Country and Park Country Club to explain why there was nothing wrong with each of their respective very long par and very tough threes. In both instances I talked about the difficulty of the full shot, compared to the relatively straightforward nature of intentionally playing short and wide and how the next shot is relatively easy.

In both cases members indicated they had never considered that line of play. It’s a bit counterintuitive since we think we should play to reach the putting surface.

I don’t think either play is obvious, but both work if you’re willing to try. In match-play I’m 3-0 at the Park CC because this works so well on a green ringed on three sides by the river where all misses are bad.

Interestingly, if everything is obvious about a course from the outset, I generally have no desire to return. I’m more intrigued when I’m quite certain I completely missed something or made a horrible decision.


I feel like you're arguing a different point that Brad was. The hole you describe is still obvious in terms of where the green is, etc. Multiple plays have revealed to you a successful way to play it, but it's not like you get to the tee the first time and have to have a long explanation of where the fairway or green is, what trouble is out there but can't be seen, etc.

Lester George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2013, 02:23:14 PM »
Tommy,

I have witnessed some at Ballyhack (15th) who required no explanation at all.  They merely observed their competitors taking the short-porch option and figured it out without discussion.  More importantly, I have also seen the opposite wherin the player observes someone in the group play the short-porch option and STILL insists on hitting driver as far as they can down the left.  Most often they only realize what they passed up once in the landing area.    

I do agree that it takes a number of times playing some holes to understand all of the different opportunites for strategic play.  I hope I build that in every one of my courses because, like Ian stated, if it is all spelled out for you, there is little intrigue and no desire to return.

Lester

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2013, 02:26:56 PM »
What got me interested in this field was the initially perplexing way that many holes at Riverfront (early TD in Suffolk VA) "appeared" to me at the outset.  They required repeated play to gain some sense of all of what was happening and to discover your own comfort level within them.

How about holes requiring careful observation of players of widely differing abilities over time in different weather conditions?

Lester, in my 3 rounds at Ballyhack, hole 15 seems to confound the longer hitter more than the short straight shooter.
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2013, 02:42:49 PM »
Tommy,

I have witnessed some at Ballyhack (15th) who required no explanation at all.  They merely observed their competitors taking the short-porch option and figured it out without discussion.  More importantly, I have also seen the opposite wherin the player observes someone in the group play the short-porch option and STILL insists on hitting driver as far as they can down the left.  Most often they only realize what they passed up once in the landing area.    

I do agree that it takes a number of times playing some holes to understand all of the different opportunites for strategic play.  I hope I build that in every one of my courses because, like Ian stated, if it is all spelled out for you, there is little intrigue and no desire to return.

Lester

Lester, don't you think it takes a few plays to understand the nuances of 15.  I recently have taken to hit driver left. If you hit driver the layup becomes interesting.  Do I go left or right? Would I rather have a 100 yard shot from the left that gives me a good look at the hole or a shot from below the level of the green that is shorter?   The hole keeps me off balance. That isn't a knock but it keeps me interested.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 02:44:52 PM by Tommy Williamsen »
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Lester George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2013, 03:01:31 PM »
Tommy,

To be sure, it does take some time to realize the options, especially once you factor in the wind. I was only emphasizing that some don't bother with instruction or explanation, they need to learn by experience for themselves.  I have seen golf professionals hit full driver to the short porch because the wind was blowing 40 miles an hour in their face.  And, on an opposite wind day (rare) I have seen iron hit to keep it on the porch. 

I agree with your premise.  It does take time.  To this day, I still wait until I get to the tee to decide what I am going to do that day.  I doubt there is any scenario under which I would ever pre-determine what shot to hit as a matter of "playing it as I always do" because I think that is EXACTLY what makes golf boring for me.  Options, to me, are the most important aspect of keeping golf FRESH.  I do agree that Brad's point of silly holes in the name of "interest" can ruin the day. 

Lester

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2013, 04:02:34 PM »
Lester, at least at 15 at Ballyhack you can see where the hole is going and you can see the options unfolding as you walk up to the fairway -- even if you might pass the first one by! I've seen "intriguing" holes where you are clueless as to where the hole is going from the middle of the fairway, or a par-5 where the landing area is only visible if you've hit an 8-iron lay up second shot, leaving you a 3-wood to the green.

Gib_Papazian

Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2013, 04:33:35 PM »
I think Brad is objecting to holes where the available strategic choices of the next shot in sequence is impossible to ascertain or evaluate. In other words, there are no cues or clues. One could make that argument about the Klondyke (#4 Lahinch for newbizoids), except there is a marking stone the hillside. My sense is courses like Stone Harbor, featuring several holes constructed with pretzel logic, are the target of his ire.

By contrast, I cannot figure out how to play #12 at TOC, so if somebody can clearly explain the strategy to my puny intellect, I would be grateful.

Bobby Jones , Jr. wrote in "Golf By Design" something to the effect that he knew one of his holes was really special when even he could not decide the best way to play it. #5 at Spanish Bay would fall into that category for me.     


Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2013, 05:22:10 PM »
Tommy,

For me this discussion brings to mind #6 on the Old Course at Ballybunion which might be one of the least attractive but interesting holes you can play.

I see no virtue in being confused where the next hole is and #6 commits no sin here. It is very obvious where #7 tee is. One can also very clearly see the 6th green from the tee.

But, it took me a long time to figure out how to play it best and maximize my chances of holding the green and making a par. Everything is right in front of you but it took me years to see it

Just in case we ever play a match there I won't give away my painfully acquired wisdom but I will leave to you to decide whether I agree with Brad's comment.
Tim Weiman

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2013, 05:32:42 PM »
Quote
"On the course everything should be self evident, whether it is how a hole plays or where the next hole is.

Does this apply to TOC?  I've often read here at GCA that you have to play it many, many times before you can understand it, or probably like it for that matter.

The last part of Brad's quote brings to mind the only true links course I played: Portmarnock.  My playing partner took a caddy.  Without him we would have gotten lost trying to find either the 2nd or 3rd hole. 

Wade Whitehead

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2013, 05:34:35 PM »
My favorite holes provide strategic options.  Many of them hold a few cards close to the vest and take time to figure out.

The short porch on 15 at Ballyhack isn't obvious at all from the back tee.  From the up tee (and downwind), the second fairway is reachable by a long hitter; this option is entirely out of the question from other tees (and wouldn't even be considered by most people playing for the first time).  Wind - and the tee being played - influence what options are available and not all of them are obvious.

Other holes at Ballyhack, including numbers 4, 6, and 8, offer options that the player can't see from the tee.

The best holes can't really be "explained" by another player; rather, they reveal their secrets over time through repeated plays and under varying conditions.

WW

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2013, 06:04:09 PM »
... One could make that argument about the Klondyke (#4 Lahinch for newbizoids), except there is a marking stone the hillside. ...

More GPS before GPS. ;)
How shortsighted of course managers to provide cart GPS, but no marking stones.
They don't get my business.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Charlie Gallagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2013, 12:36:47 AM »
    I consider the most interesting holes those that present alternative routes based upon hazard or obstacle placement, usually visually apparent before the drive, layup, or approach is struck. The solutions are only revealed over time, as one plays again and again in different winds, temperatures, and competetive situations. Heroic challenge, without safer alternative, or straight up penal,  bore me. The best holes present an argument for solving problems via execution of different strategies, often based on a perception of current playing conditions.
   To create such appeal there needs to be width, and cunning hazard and obstacle placement. The greens need to present surfaces that compliment good approaches or repel poorer choices and lousy execution. Recovery, generally, needs to be possible, though a fatal result can be incorporated here and there to enhance strategy dramatically at various points in the round. Additionally, predictable ground undulation usually weakens interest, instead of enhancing it.
The above is a gross over simplification, but it is meant to express that choice is important in the game as it creates interest and good controversy. The best presentation of choice and challenge make the best courses to me. I am indeed fortuante to have been on a few of them.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2013, 08:43:19 AM »
This debate goes way back. The best take on it was Tom Simpson's. He distinguishes suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. Simpson says:

"The strategic golf architect, in a word, hides his hand as much as he possibly can, and likes to keep the scratch player guessing. But if he is inclined to press the advantage of suppressio veri it does not mean necessarily that he will go to the length of suggestio falsi."

Bob

Charlie Gallagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "If a hole needs explaining it doesn't work"
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2013, 01:21:22 PM »
Tim Wieman,
    Funny you bring up 6 at the ' Bunnion. It hides the strategy damn well. I have gone too far left off the tee the three times I have played it and have not been able to hold the surface. My guess is that down the right side presents a much better angle for the approach to actually stay on the surface.
What say you to that?
One quick story about Ballybunion; on  my 2nd round I was even par standing on 7 tee, wind was coming about 30 out of the southwest. I shot 89.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back