[Niall C]

The following is taken from Ran’s introductory thread to his Wykagyl profile and includes a quote from Bill Coore


“He responded: 'Not in the least and in fact I don't think about Wykagyl's pars like that. Those are just the best holes for that land, whatever the number on the card says is fine with me.'There you have it – further confirmation that the best architects of today have moved away from the formulaic approach that marred golf course architecture just a few decades prior.”


If indeed the best architects have changed their methods, will this lead to a change to the standard approach of judging golf courses by par, course length, direction and length of the par 3’s, and all the other painting by numbers way of doing things ?


Thoughts ?

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

It will take a while for people to change their minds on such topics.  I've been chipping away at it for 20+ years but there is still a long way to go.  Just last week I heard that a potential client is concerned about "having three par-3's in five holes on the back nine."  I told them the same arrangement had not seemed to affect the public's opinion of Pacific Dunes; they were not aware of that. 


So, the more examples there are which defy convention, the easier it will be to convince other potential clients to not worry about it so much, and that's where the real change needs to happen.  But these efforts to go out on a limb need to be highlighted more than they are by writers and by the courses in their advertising, instead of being swept under the rug in the hope that visitors won't notice!

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - I think there's a question that needs to come before yours (even though both you and Tom D seem to think it unnecessary): that is, do we BELIEVE Bill Coore?


I don't mean 'does HE believe' what he says? -- I'm sure he does, and that he is honestly expressing that belief.


What I mean is: do WE think that he can actually -- with so many courses under his belt, and with the conventions of golf courses in general and of C&C courses specifically so well and firmly entrenched -- look at a piece of land with such open and unfettered eyes as to "see" the best holes on the land and the best routing for those holes INDEPENDENT of those conventions?


I don't. I don't think he ACTUALLY can, even though he thinks he can.


And I don't mean that as a harsh criticism; it is the particular (and unique) danger that all very talented and successful creative types must face and overcome: i.e. by digging deep to question their own most cherished beliefs/assumptions and philosophies.   


As I say, not a criticism; but I do think that before we can ask whether the COLLECTIVE will fully embrace a new way of judging a course, we do need to recognize that even the best ARCHITECTS working today may not have (actually) embraced it either.


Peter


 

[John Kavanaugh]

It will take a while for people to change their minds on such topics.  I've been chipping away at it for 20+ years but there is still a long way to go.  Just last week I heard that a potential client is concerned about "having three par-3's in five holes on the back nine."  I told them the same arrangement had not seemed to affect the public's opinion of Pacific Dunes; they were not aware of that. 

Please, I have been preaching for years how the number of par 3's on the back nine at Pacific is a shortcoming. You need to replace public's opinion with rater's opinion. There is not a low handicapper in the world that wants to give strokes on par 3's when the bets are pressed on the back. It's a deal breaker.


The only way this works in a real world scenario is at a resort with beautiful views that may be a once in lifetime experience. Day in and day out at a members private club it is a disaster that limits the members who can be in your regular game.

[Tom_Doak]

Please, I have been preaching for years how the number of par 3's on the back nine at Pacific is a shortcoming. You need to replace public's opinion with rater's opinion. There is not a low handicapper in the world that wants to give strokes on par 3's when the bets are pressed on the back. It's a deal breaker.


The only way this works in a real world scenario is at a resort with beautiful views that may be a once in lifetime experience. Day in and day out at a members private club it is a disaster that limits the members who can be in your regular game.

John:


There are a lot of resort courses in the world, and it doesn't take one with beautiful views to make people like it.  Your perspective above is somewhat narrow-minded, as I would guess that less than half the people playing at most clubs on any given day are involved in serious money games.  For the rest, more par-3's = a chance to make more pars and birdies and a lower score = more fun for them. 


I've had a ton of people approach me to say they had a great score on the back nine at Pacific Dunes, with no understanding of why it happened for them.  Mike Keiser has told me the same for himself, which is one of the reasons he embraced a similar set-up at Cabot Cliffs.


Now, I am not saying I'd pander to players and do this all the time.  So far I have done it once out of 35 courses, because that's where it fit the land.  If they let me do it on the project in Australia, that will make two.

[Kyle Harris]

It will take a while for people to change their minds on such topics.  I've been chipping away at it for 20+ years but there is still a long way to go.  Just last week I heard that a potential client is concerned about "having three par-3's in five holes on the back nine."  I told them the same arrangement had not seemed to affect the public's opinion of Pacific Dunes; they were not aware of that. 

Please, I have been preaching for years how the number of par 3's on the back nine at Pacific is a shortcoming. You need to replace public's opinion with rater's opinion. There is not a low handicapper in the world that wants to give strokes on par 3's when the bets are pressed on the back. It's a deal breaker.


The only way this works in a real world scenario is at a resort with beautiful views that may be a once in lifetime experience. Day in and day out at a members private club it is a disaster that limits the members who can be in your regular game.

Hate the game, not the playa.

[John Kavanaugh]

I've had a ton of people approach me to say they had a great score on the back nine at Pacific Dunes, with no understanding of why it happened for them.  Mike Keiser has told me the same for himself, which is one of the reasons he embraced a similar set-up at Cabot Cliffs.

All I can think to say is Merry Christmas in return. I doubt I will receive a gift I will cherish more than the above.

[Peter Pallotta]

And now that I'm on this line of thought:


When was the last time any of us has even HEARD of, let alone seen/played, a new course that at some stage in its development/routing ever had a CHANCE at turning out to be a Par 64, or Par 67, or Par 75?


I mean, with hundreds and sometimes thousands of acres of land, how is it that architects have NEVER seen that the BEST 18 holes were ALL Par 4s? Or on less than ideal/large sites, how come we've never heard of an architect that decided that the land didn't offer even ONE Par 5 that was worth a damn, or that the land dictated EIGHT Par 3s?


I mean, motion pictures are pretty conventional as well, tending to be in the two hour range, but at least we have evidence, say "Heaven's Gate", that a filmmaker at least once REALLY believed that he needed FOUR hours in order to tell his story best.


Where and in whose filing cabinet is to be found even one initial routing that DIDN'T turn out to be between Par 69 and 73?   

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,

I think I hear where you're coming from. As I whittle away at my first improvement plan for an existing course, one of the first things I tried to address was a very unconventional sequencing of pars throughout, and consequently convincing myself to embrace what was in place. There is no economical solution that I could find, so that led me back to Bill's position; that  is, making the most fun and interesting holes out of the routing(except I have to be financially prudent about recommended changes on an existing course). So, I tend to agree with you that "we" tend to start with convention, and learn how to believe our "alternatives" are what we really wanted to present all along.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - thanks for helping me feel that I'm not completely out in left field, and for describing the process so well.  I know the course you are talking about, and I was struck by the fact that while it is less than Par 70 and not long by today's standards, each of the individual holes makes complete sense: sometimes as stout 4s, sometimes as half par 5s, sometimes as daunting Par 3s, sometimes as gettable 4s, sometimes as charmingly short 3s. Interestingly, we get all this without any obvious or ostentatious quirk.

[Thomas Dai]

There is not a low handicapper in the world that wants to give strokes on par 3's when the bets are pressed on the back. It's a deal breaker.

Par-3's are usually SI's 15-18 so a player has to be giving away a considerable number of shots for this to be a factor.


Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

There is not a low handicapper in the world that wants to give strokes on par 3's when the bets are pressed on the back. It's a deal breaker.

Par-3's are usually SI's 15-18 so a player has to be giving away a considerable number of shots for this to be a factor.


Atb

4 par 3's on the back requires that at least one is no more than a SI of 12. That is assuming every par 3 has the highest SI owing to which an argument could be made is poor design.  I am around a six handicap and have many friends, I'm old btw, that play to an 18. If I am going to give them a stroke on a par 3 it need be a ball busting tough hole. And it sure as hell only better happen once on the back nine or I will simply find a new friend for our game.

[Jerry Kluger]

Sand Hills is arguably the most significant course of the last 25 years because of what it started.  Besides the minimalism it also made the short/drivable par 4 important for modern golf courses.  To Bill Coore's point - there are back to back drivable par 4s at Sand Hills and I have never heard any meaningful or valid criticism of their being back to back.

[Tom_Doak]

4 par 3's on the back requires that at least one is no more than a SI of 12. That is assuming every par 3 has the highest SI owing to which an argument could be made is poor design.  I am around a six handicap and have many friends, I'm old btw, that play to an 18. If I am going to give them a stroke on a par 3 it need be a ball busting tough hole. And it sure as hell only better happen once on the back nine or I will simply find a new friend for our game.

Now that I've seen your argument, it's even dumber than I thought. 


If indeed you are giving one or two strokes on par-3's on the back nine, it's probably because the front nine was also imbalanced, and your opponent did not receive a stroke on one or two par-4's on the front.  If you won those holes as you should have, then you would be playing with an advantage already in hand.


I have never understood why people care so much about which are the stroke holes.  If I give you a shot on a par-3 and you win it, and then on the next hole you don't get a shot on a par-4 and lose it, it's pretty much the same as if I'd given you the stroke on the par-4 ... unless I am missing something here.  The only thing that's completely unfair in allocating stroke holes, is if a couple of the stroke holes fall at the very end, and the match is over before the higher-handicap player gets to use them.

[jeffwarne]

4 par 3's on the back requires that at least one is no more than a SI of 12. That is assuming every par 3 has the highest SI owing to which an argument could be made is poor design.  I am around a six handicap and have many friends, I'm old btw, that play to an 18. If I am going to give them a stroke on a par 3 it need be a ball busting tough hole. And it sure as hell only better happen once on the back nine or I will simply find a new friend for our game.

Now that I've seen your argument, it's even dumber than I thought. 


If indeed you are giving one or two strokes on par-3's on the back nine, it's probably because the front nine was also imbalanced, and your opponent did not receive a stroke on one or two par-4's on the front.  If you won those holes as you should have, then you would be playing with an advantage already in hand.


I have never understood why people care so much about which are the stroke holes.  If I give you a shot on a par-3 and you win it, and then on the next hole you don't get a shot on a par-4 and lose it, it's pretty much the same as if I'd given you the stroke on the par-4 ... unless I am missing something here.  The only thing that's completely unfair in allocating stroke holes, is if a couple of the stroke holes fall at the very end, and the match is over before the higher-handicap player gets to use them.

John,
I think you'd fare OK at PD as the only quibble you might have is at 17, a par 3, where you would be giving a stroke to the 18.
I personally would have a bigger probelm with giving a shot on the par five 18th to a 4 handicap.


I see things a bit differently than Tom as my games. like John's, invlove a lot of pressing(2 down automatic and one down optional), and the back is usually doubled as well.
I hate when the last few holes are the lowest handicap holes, as I'm giving shots to a low handicapper on the holes with the most riding.(and as Tom points out may not even factor if the match is over)
I'm a much bigger fan of a card where a 9 handicap is getting a shot on every other hole (regardless of difficulty) rather than say getting three in a row-then none for awhile. Early hurts the guy getting shots on the later presses, and later hurts the guy giving shots on later presses.
The difficulty of the hole is irrelevant, it's the spacing of the shots.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm a much bigger fan of a card where a 9 handicap is getting a shot on every other hole (regardless of difficulty) rather than say getting three in a row-then none for awhile. Early hurts the guy getting shots on the later presses, and later hurts the guy giving shots on later presses.
The difficulty of the hole is irrelevant, it's the spacing of the shots.

Interesting.  In Australia, I noticed years ago that they had separate stroke hole designations on the card for Stableford [where a long par-3 might be the number 4 stroke hole] and for match play [where holes 4, 8, 12 and 16 are the first four stroke holes, no matter what sort of hole they may be].  You may have explained why this is ... those Aussies like to gamble, too.

[Thomas Dai]

Interesting.  In Australia, I noticed years ago that they had separate stroke hole designations on the card for Stableford [where a long par-3 might be the number 4 stroke hole] and for match play [where holes 4, 8, 12 and 16 are the first four stroke holes, no matter what sort of hole they may be].  You may have explained why this is ... those Aussies like to gamble, too.

I wish we had this 2xSI system in the UK given how much stableford is being played these days.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Niall - I think there's a question that needs to come before yours (even though both you and Tom D seem to think it unnecessary): that is, do we BELIEVE Bill Coore?

I don't mean 'does HE believe' what he says? -- I'm sure he does, and that he is honestly expressing that belief.

What I mean is: do WE think that he can actually -- with so many courses under his belt, and with the conventions of golf courses in general and of C&C courses specifically so well and firmly entrenched -- look at a piece of land with such open and unfettered eyes as to "see" the best holes on the land and the best routing for those holes INDEPENDENT of those conventions?

I don't. I don't think he ACTUALLY can, even though he thinks he can.

And I don't mean that as a harsh criticism; it is the particular (and unique) danger that all very talented and successful creative types must face and overcome: i.e. by digging deep to question their own most cherished beliefs/assumptions and philosophies.   

As I say, not a criticism; but I do think that before we can ask whether the COLLECTIVE will fully embrace a new way of judging a course, we do need to recognize that even the best ARCHITECTS working today may not have (actually) embraced it either.

Peter
 

I know what you mean Pietro.  For guys who say par doesn't matter its a miracle that so many courses come with a par between 70 and 72.  Its obvious that par does matter because what is really happening is that a fairly narrow range for course yardage is sought out. 

Ciao

[David Wuthrich]

Is Tom supposed to build golf courses with betting in mind?  I know that there are a lot of guys who bet on the golf course and I understand all of your points.  I hate to give strokes as well when I HAVE to play a match.  I think guys like Tom and his fellow architects should not worry about what the handicap will be on holes 9 and 15 to 18.  I want them to give me the BEST course that they can with the land that they have and just let me enjoy the experience.  Just my thoughts.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom should build courses with the mindset of them not going NLE. How's that working out?


In all seriousness courses that promote people to support the club and facilities are the best courses of all. That is done though healthy, fair competition between friends. We have a fine local course where the 9th and 18th are the two best holes on the course. They are also the number 1 and 2 handicap holes. I don't play there because I'm not gonna give a stroke on the final hole of each side every time I play. The course goes bankrupt on a regular basis.

[jeffwarne]

Is Tom supposed to build golf courses with betting in mind?   I know that there are a lot of guys who bet on the golf course and I understand all of your points.  I hate to give strokes as well when I HAVE to play a match.  I think guys like Tom and his fellow architects should not worry about what the handicap will be on holes 9 and 15 to 18.  I want them to give me the BEST course that they can with the land that they have and just let me enjoy the experience.  Just my thoughts.

I agree with you 100%.
Build the best course you can.
I am only suggesting HANDICAPPING the holes with betting in mind by spacing shots somewhat evenly.
The most fun is when you're giving 7 or 9 shots and you give a 1/2 shot on 9 and 18 -no ties on those presses

[SL_Solow]

Tom; right or wrong, Barney is more concerned about the back nine because that is where the presses occur most often.  Thus the "advantage" on the backside  is more important than the advantage on the front.  As for the reason a course closes is directly attributable to its unsuitability for gambling, I haven't seen the course but I suspect I could discover a number of other significant flaws inherent in the operation.  I always wonder how many players like to gamble when they golf as to those who use golf as a means of gambling.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think we can safely agree that ANGC is the greatest course for competition ever built. Take a look at this scorecard. http://www.myusualgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ScanImage001.jpg

[John Kavanaugh]

For you ANGC haters, and I know you are out there, how about TOC? https://www.standrews.com/salt9/media/documents/old-course-scorecard-2015.pdf

[Tom_Doak]

For you ANGC haters, and I know you are out there, how about TOC? https://www.standrews.com/salt9/media/documents/old-course-scorecard-2015.pdf

Well that's exactly what I mean.  They've got the Road hole at St. Andrews listed as the #5 stroke hole, when it is one of the hardest holes in the world.  We're arguing about the assignment of stroke holes, not the architecture of them.


Merry Christmas, John.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()