A perfect description of the 16th at Castle Stuart?

[Ran Morrissett]

‘A brainteaser, charged with uncertainty and danger, electric with restraint.’
 
That quote comes from the New York Times Book Review of William Boyd’s "Waiting for Sunrise," which I am presently reading. I kept looking at the back of the book (and the quote) while the kids and I flew to/from Cabot last week.
 
I love the quote and of course, my mind shifted to golf holes that it evoked with the 16th at Castle Stuart springing to mind. During my one round there, I vividly remember standing on the tee confused by what I saw. For a short ~325y hole the fairway appeared both wide and trouble free.
 

This is what the tee shot looks like. No reason to push the panic button ... yet.
 
Knowing how much care and thought had gone into its design, I felt that there was more to the challenge than what I could immediately discern. Sure enough, my approach started rolling along the green and down a bank into a grassy lie several feet below the putting surface. From there, my pitch - briefly - reached the putting surface before retreating backwards into a bunker. Then this, then that.  

The clean, simple look of the hole and its miles of short grass was perturbing. I knew that a trap had been laid yet I still blundered. Still feeling stupid to this day, I vow to do better next time!
 
The hole's personality really shined during the Scottish Open, especially on that dynamic last day. Down wind, Michelson went for it from the tee with just a hybrid.  Lefty's draw while well struck had no prayer of staying on the domed green which angles front right to back left - the firm playing conditions were intolerant of the wrong shape shot. He managed a par while a couple of the leaders suffered bogeys after going for the green from the tee.
 
I love holes like this and the quote from the NYT Book Review captures it perfectly. Does anyone agree? Disagree? And what other crafty holes are so aptly described?

Best,

[Bill_McBride]

Looks like a really long Redan!

Just ordered Waiting for Sunrise.  William Boyd is a great writer.  Brazzaville Beach is one of my favorite books all time. 

[Tom_Doak]

Ran:

I'm not sure that is the best example of restraint, since everything about the hole is completely achieved through grading -- i.e. it's manufactured to LOOK restrained.  Or is your idea of "restrained" just equal to "fewer bunkers"?

I liked the hole, but did not think it was one of the best there.  It is certainly a hole you have to play a few times before you figure out how best to play it yourself.

[Niall C]

Ran

William Boyd - I once asked him what he clearly considered a really stupid question at a book discussion session, and got a fairly curt answer. Still read all of his books though.

With regards the 16th at Castle Stuart, it's a nice hole, but I'm struggling to see how its a brain teaser. It's all there in front of you with perhaps the exception of the bunker behind the green but then landing in that might be doing you a favour if you go long. But basically it's fairly obvious what you're being asked to do, no ?

Niall

[Mark Pearce]

Or is your idea of "restrained" just equal to "fewer bunkers"?

This may go some way to explaining Ran's inability to appreciate Muirfield!

[John Chilver-Stainer]

The subtlety of Castle Stuart is often lost on some who view the wide fairways only as an easy target. The truth being Parsinen and Hanse have gone to great lengths to disguise the obvious straight drive by deviating it from it's line to a less advantageous position.

The 16th is a classic case. It’s worth studying the recommendations of Parsinen/Hanse a bit closer. Quote:-

“A weak drive to the left off the tee leaves a difficult angle across a deep fairway hollow fronting the green.
Long and right might find either a bunker or some heather from which recoveries can be made.
Through the green and beyond are hidden 'saving' bunkers.
Weak and right can leave a very manageable set of options for getting close - wedge it, chip it, and yes even putt it; playing less than driver down the right could be the smart play.”

"Electric restraint" could also be a description of the way to play the hole, and it is certainly "uncertain" but hardly dangerous.
All in all a great hole.

Interestingly Wick is another links course where, on some fairways, balls driven from the tee directed down what appears to be the obvious line are propelled away from the line of play leaving nasty approaches.
However finding the best alternative requires repeat attempts or a good caddie.

At Muirfield duing the Open Peter Allis raised the point, if tour players used local caddies instead of their regulars, as in olden days, they may have saved a few valuable strokes, particularly approaches and putting lines.

[Tom_Doak]

However finding the best alternative requires repeat attempts or a good caddie.

At Muirfield duing the Open Peter Allis raised the point, if tour players used local caddies instead of their regulars, as in olden days, they may have saved a few valuable strokes, particularly approaches and putting lines.

I thought the same thing about Sebonack for the Women's Open.  However, the Tour players of today rely on their caddies for moral support more than for advice on where to hit the ball -- and are much more liable to be put off should the caddie say one wrong thing along the way.  That's why they don't consider the locals.

[David_Tepper]

"I liked the hole, but did not think it was one of the best there."

Tom D. -

Which 3 or 4 holes did you think were the best at Castle Stuart?

DT

[Tom_Doak]

"I liked the hole, but did not think it was one of the best there."

Tom D. -

Which 3 or 4 holes did you think were the best at Castle Stuart?

DT

Three best holes:  1st, 3rd, 11th.  Honorable mention to the 5th.

Two best views:  4th and 15th.  I loved the way both were set up.

Two holes I didn't like:  9th, 14th.  They are both short par-4's which are not easy, I understand the intent, but both green settings seemed really forced onto the ground and unnatural.  In that respect, the 16th is much better, but it's still not nearly as exciting a hole to play as the 3rd.

[Niall C]

John

Whats so subtle about landing a ball on a sloping fairway and seeing it take the slope ? As I said earlier, nice golf hole but all this hype, come on, smacks of emperors new clothes.

Tom

Interesting choice of preferred holes. Without picking individual holes I think generally the best and most successful holes are the holes down by the water and I think the reason for that is that they are more constrained in terms of width with the water and hillside providing elements of penalty missing on the top holes. The holes also have a bit of lateral movement in the fairways thats missing in top holes.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

Interesting choice of preferred holes. Without picking individual holes I think generally the best and most successful holes are the holes down by the water and I think the reason for that is that they are more constrained in terms of width with the water and hillside providing elements of penalty missing on the top holes. The holes also have a bit of lateral movement in the fairways thats missing in top holes.

Niall:

Also, obviously, the holes down by the water had more natural features to work with, where the upper holes had to be created from scratch.

[Sean_A]

Ran:

I'm not sure that is the best example of restraint, since everything about the hole is completely achieved through grading -- i.e. it's manufactured to LOOK restrained.  Or is your idea of "restrained" just equal to "fewer bunkers"?

Well, now that you mention it - yes, fewer bunkers is part of being restrained - don't you think?  I reckon you are hinting at restrained meaning less building holes and more finding holes - or laying courses over the land.  If this is the case, surely fewer bunkers is part of that.  I know that you always say that when building on sand its practically an open license to build loads of bunkers, but is that the best thing to do, especially if they are quite unnatural pits such as pots are?

Generally speaking, the more bunkers there are the difficult it is to make them believable as important or enhancing the design.  Put me down as one who believes Muirfield is in the main about the bunkers and that is something I will always find suspect in a design.

Ciao

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Nďall,

I think you have been blinded by the hype.

Call it , blurb, recommendation, comment or preference – one thing is certain at the16th  ,  ”Whats so subtle about landing a ball on a sloping fairway and seeing it take the slope”, is a simplistic description of the tee shot. Behind the ridge on the fairway the ball moves left much quicker than one can imagine from the tee. (read earlier quote Phil Mickelson’s shot at scottish open) .You appear to have fallen into the trap set by Parsinen and Hanse and not even considered the semi blind fall off as a possible threat. As the Architects recommend, a weaker shot to the right brings a better approach opportunity than a drive into the right.

To repeat  - the obvious line as not always the best line.

The 16th is not the first golf course that can mislead the player by turboing a long drive to a “bad place”.

That is the subtle part of good golf course design - deception.
The obvious leads to disadvantage whereas the considered shot can avoid problems and create chances.

Cheers
John

[David Kelly]

‘A brainteaser, charged with uncertainty and danger, electric with restraint.’

Hanse's 12th hole at Rustic Canyon fits the description as well. 

Boyd has always been one of my favorites - "An Ice Cream War," "A Good Man in Africa" and "Any Human Heart" especially.  "Waiting for Sunrise" was fine although it starts out like Joseph Roth-lite and ends up morphing into a John Buchan novel.

[Mark Pearce]

Either Ran is right, and it's a brainteaser, charged with uncertainty and danger, or John is and it's an example of deception.  I'm struggling to see how it can be both.  For the lovers of the hole (I haven't seen it), which is it?  Does it appear friendly but yet deceive or is it charged with uncertainty and danger?

[Tom_Doak]

Either Ran is right, and it's a brainteaser, charged with uncertainty and danger, or John is and it's an example of deception.  I'm struggling to see how it can be both.  For the lovers of the hole (I haven't seen it), which is it?  Does it appear friendly but yet deceive or is it charged with uncertainty and danger?

Mark:

It can be both, to different people.  But it really isn't either, if you read the yardage book as they practically insist.

P.S.  I didn't like the yardage book.  Why give people strategic problems to solve if you are just going to print the answers for them right alongside the questions?

[Niall C]

John

Its been a couple of years since I played there and I don't recall off hand how much is blind but I think that its pretty easy to discern or make an intuitive guess that the land falls away to the left. Now short right and longer left might offer different shots but is there that much difference in degree of difficulty ? I don't think so, just another way of playing the hole to me. That being the case, and it might not be the case for all golfers, then the strategy/risk reward really isn't there. Its just a shot to nothing in going for the green if you happen to be long enough to get there.

One thing I will say is that I am often disappointed in modern designs that they seem to faltten out everything so any hole with a bit of lateral slope should be encouraged.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

....the obvious line as not always the best line. The 16th is not the first golf course that can mislead the player by turboing a long drive to a “bad place”. That is the subtle part of good golf course design - deception. The obvious leads to disadvantage whereas the considered shot can avoid problems and create chances.

Irrespective of the course, these are great lines from John and a lovely descriptive lesson in what to consider under the heading 'course management'. As discussed on a separate thread recently, where Tony Jacklin's 10 points on links golf was mentioned, this approach would be right up the street of folk like Messrs Thomson and Locke and Big Jack, plus, to give a couple of more recent examples, Nick Faldo at TOC and Tiger at Hoylake.
Great lines John.
All the best.

[Jon Wiggett]

P.S.  I didn't like the yardage book.  Why give people strategic problems to solve if you are just going to print the answers for them right alongside the questions?

Tom,

many GCAs design holes with a strategy concept and I have heard several including you explain the challenges the golfer would face. I do not think it is a bad thing to explain this as at least it causes the golfer to think a little about strategy which is a thing 99% of golfers do not. What needs to be remembered is that despite all the in depth thinking of the GCA most players will over come the challenge set in ways the designer of the hole never thought of.

On another point, I was amused to see that you have the par 3 11th as one of your favourites as I think it is the worst hole on the course. Aside from it obvious 'eye candy' element it lacks any sort of strategy that I could discern.  Either you hit the green in the air or face a tough up and down.

Jon