[John Kirk]

  I visited Scotland with my father and brother-in-law in 1998.  We played five or six rounds of golf there, including a round at Royal Dornoch.  It was the golfing highlight of the trip, and for me “raised the bar” for how good a golf course can be.
 
I remember only a few golf shots from the trip, including a specific series of shots at the 14^th green at Royal Dornoch.  My father and I were close to each other after two shots, right in front of the green.  The green is perched a few feet above fairway level, with a front hole location that day.  I went first, and choosing a lofted wedge, made a nice flop shot that finished about 8 feet long, leaving a downhill par putt.  My Dad then took a pitching wedge and bounced one into the slope, the ball popping up and ending about 6 feet below the hole.  I missed my putt, and Dad made his par on this difficult par 4.
 
This was years before I knew Royal Dornoch #14 as the world famous hole with the unique nickname “Foxy”.  It is a testament to Foxy that I am able to remember specific plays twenty years later.
 
Here are two pictures of Foxy:
 




This picture shows how the ground slopes up to the green, quite the ideal size and shape to encourage different styles of short game plays.
 

 
The strategy is straightforward.  The fairway is oriented at a modest right to left angle from the tee, while the desired tee shot finishes in the left half of the fairway, giving the best angle of approach to the green perched several feet about the fairway.  You are tempted to try and carry as far as possible down the left side.  Although my memories are nil, it appears missing the fairway (on either side) makes it very difficult to hit the green in regulation.
 
The case for a Foxy template hole is similarly straightforward.  The design causes many approach shots to come to rest short of the green, requiring the player to make the short game play up and over a small rise.  I consider a golf course to be a comprehensive test of the player’s skill, and I argue that this type of greenside shot is a fundamental type of advanced golf.  Short grass and firm turf is not a hard requirement, but it is highly desirable.
 
The basics of the hole can be easily replicated.  It can be built on flat land, and there are no bunkers or water hazards to consider.  All that’s needed is an angled fairway and a perched green.  The green can be manufactured, as can the difficulties for missing the fairway (deep rough, undulations, etc.).  Of course, an appropriate natural location is superior.  One of the great things about Foxy is that it is a gentle type of half-par hole.  While it is relatively easy to be greenside in regulation, getting up and down in two shots is not trivial.
 
An extreme example of this type of hole is the 15^th hole at The Kingsley Club.  The tee shot demands are not exactly the same, but the green is nearly impossible to hit in regulation.  Playing up the slope from the front of left of this severe, small green is very common.
 
The Foxy “template” is not recognized, but it merits consideration as a fine long hole design for any golf course.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes!


Well described and well argued.


That indeed should be a template --though I can't think of many architects today who would make the hole long enough for it to be effective/interesting.


If we're all flying 8 irons to the green, the whole point of it would be lost..


You will know much better than me, John: are there many modern Par 4s that play 440 yards from the blues and end with a perched green?


Edit: I remember the 14th - Black at The Loop.  430 yards I think from the daily tees. Now that's what I'm talking about!

[Sean_A]

The aspect of Foxy which is never mentioned is the huge angled green.  Usually, if one drives the ball right the approach is blind and extremely difficult due to having to get the ball up quickly over the land forms (the last of which is actually the green), which physically define the hole, yet make the carry to the green.  If the hole is well right on the green the length factor is massively reduced and so is the need to drive left.  The variety of the hole is incredible.

I don't know of a hole which approximates Foxy which is partly why it is one of the greatest holes in golf. 

FYI...never seen a hole approximate Sea Hedrig either and it too isone of the greatest holes in golf.

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

Devil's Advocate, reporting for duty][


How much of Foxy is dependent on the terrain? It appears to play from an elevated tee to a lower fairway, to a slightly-elevated green. If this is the case, do those qualities define the hole in such a way that their absence would neuter the reproduction?


Next, if the above is the case, must the entire course be built around this particular hole? Par three template holes can be dropped in nearly anywhere; with the longer template holes, the challenge increases. There's a reason that the 18th at Yale cannot be recreated, without building a course around it. Never mind the lateral question Why would you? (if that particular hole is not your fancy) and focus on the demands and sacrifices that finding Foxy might compel.


A bit outside the lines is this question: do successful courses exist that don't go all-in on template holes? Can a course be named that has one or two templates (wherein an architect might say, Oh, we can drop a Foxy here and then put down 15 or so of our own creations.

[Steve Lapper]

John,


   In what must be our personal 355 degrees of literary rotation, I've often thought just the same thing!


  Few holes resonate so strongly and clearly in my mind as the infamous 14th (Foxy) at Dornoch. I've had at least a dozen or more plays and can remember most every shot and outcome. After breaking my virginity there, I'll admit I ALWAYS get nervously excited at the 10th, awaiting a go at 14. Concurrently, I always fee a bit deflated stepping onto the 15th tee.


  Simply put, it always strikes me as golf's simple and elegant example of an exacting and brilliant hole (as well as the one that has (nor needs) nary a single bunker. As anyone who has ever studied, understood, or appreciated great golf architecture can observe, it is amongst the most intelligent and natural (save for the push up green) of any design, anywhere.


  Why hasn't it been replicated or subject to template duplication, I don't know? It might well exist on any flattish course or rumpled landscape that has a small valley floor. It could be reasonably duplicated on any sand or dune prevalent course. I've often seen otherwise similar greens on holes that don't nearly present similar angles of approach. I've seen some parts of it in my mind at Maidstone, at Fishers, at LACC, at Oakmont, at WFW, at Paraparapumu, etc....Again, I wonder why no architect with any historical chops hasn't tried?


  The last question was really a trick one! A good part of me wouldn't want to see such a singularly unique and masterful hole bastardized and reduced to sheer mimicry. How many times have holes been labeled or described as Redan, Cape, Home, Eden, etc...only to leave one scratch their head about the overt failure to capture the original values. Maybe there was a good reason a fellow like AWT gave up trying to replicate them after a single try (SHCC). Like seeing Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" modern-to-contempory transcendant masterpiece for the first or fiftieth time, I'm always really glad no one has ever attempted to copy it. Maybe we'll be that lucky and never see the original Foxy sullied by cheap imitation.


  Great Question and thanks for posting...Wishing You and Yours (all all here) a Happy Holidays and Great 2017!

[Tom_Doak]

John:


I've seen three attempts to imitate the green complex at "Foxy".


Two are on my own courses ... the 15th at Pacific Dunes and the 18th at Tara Iti.  Both are par-5's, and dependent on playing downwind for the run-up approach shot to come into play.  The angle of those greens is a bit different than the real thing, though; you don't have to worry so much about going over the back and down as you do at Dornoch.  [Both are on natural landforms, and I wasn't going to alter the natural landform to make them closer to the 14th at Dornoch.]


The other version of Foxy is on the Donald Ross Memorial course at Boyne Highlands in Michigan.  For me, it was a failure, because the turf in the fairway doesn't allow the run-up shot that is the making of the hole.  And that, in my humble opinion, is why you don't see more architects try to build a copy of Foxy ... because unless you're working on fescue or dormant Bermuda, it is never going to play right.


P.S.  I did propose a version of Foxy as the finishing hole on our design for the Olympic course in Rio.  Unfortunately there probably wasn't a single guy on the jury who was familiar with it ... Peter Dawson included.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the biggest reason no one tries it is that it is impossible for the average player to hold the green without using his/her "standard shot."  Or the 180 hitter, trying to reach the green from long distance, and who would get on, save for that little bank that kicks his ball away.


The small, sharp, targeted bank has given way to broader slopes that let more golfers predict and actually manage to use a slope to reach the green.


Yes, some believe we are making the game too easy, others believe we are learning from experience to design a better course for all.


The only similar green I recall from my own portfolio is the 10 at Legends at Giant's Ridge, which has a bit of a false front, and sharply sloping fairway below that.  No one really complains about it, so I guess one Foxy type green per course would survive, despite its potential design flaws. 


And, as usual, if I heard complaints, I would expect it to be from good players whose ball "deserved" to stay on the green, or who objected to playing a non-standard shot, rather than average ones who really did come up just short.  For them, chipping from in front of the green is fairly common.

[Thomas Dai]

A bit outside the lines is this question: do successful courses exist that don't go all-in on template holes? Can a course be named that has one or two templates (wherein an architect might say, Oh, we can drop a Foxy here and then put down 15 or so of our own creations.

Weston-Super-Mare GC by Alister MacKenzie. The 15th hole follows a Road Hole template. The green very much so, the rest you have to look closely at. I don't recall there being any other obvious replica holes on the course at W-S-M, but then again there could be as it's generally a bit different to when Dr MacK' laid it out 90+ years ago.

A 'Foxy' question -

Each time I've played RDGC the 14th hole's been into the wind. How does it play downwind given the green's angle, the greenside chipping/pitching/putting areas etc? Can a player stop the ball on the putting surface easily with the second shot etc?

atb

[Ian Mackenzie]

Thomas,


It's a hard green to hit, especially if the flag is on the right side as it is tough to also gauge how deep it is in the green as the mound blocks the view of much of the flagstick. Plus, the green feels as if it plays away on the right side and a wee tilted from front to back.


So, Coming into the green on your second shot, downwind - or cross Wind, presents a challenge to the player to hold the green. Whether from 150 or 180....Four is a fantastic score and that usually means that you two-putted from 50' or made an 8-10 footer following a quality chip.


Cheers,
Ian

[John Chilver-Stainer]

For me what makes the green special is the LARGE HUMP to the front right of the green.

The last time I played Royal Dornoch this summer I was faced with a 40 yard approach to the Foxy green, more or less in line with the the middle of the green. The pin was about 2 yards to the right of the pin position in the photograph.


To play a sand wedge from a tight lie with not much green to play with was not a clever option for my skill level so I revelled at the chance of pulling off a runner.


I found it difficult to judge the run of the ball from the 40 yards to the steep side slopes directly in line with the pin, particularly if the ball starts bouncing. Either the ball gets held up on the slope or if it’s too hot will run through the green. It was a wet day and the steep slope looked fluffier than the fairway. Not much margin for error.


However the softer slope of the large hump and slicker surface gave me more confidence in how the run of the ball would react. The really interesting and cool part was that the hump rounded at the top - this meant the ball could deflect in any chosen direction.


I chose a line left of the centre of the hump hoping that it would deflect slightly left in the direction of the hole.


Suffice to say the execution was a 7 out of 10 and I got the ball to within 10 feet of the hole and had my little moment of self satisfaction.


The Green deserves to be imitated but wether it deserves template status (one of the best 18 green types) I wouldn’t go that far.

[David_Tepper]

For the record, I once saw Mike Whitaker make a kick-in birdie on Foxy.

Now that I think about it, I have played or seen that hole played 800 to 1,000 times and that could be the only birdie I have ever witnessed on that hole.
 

[archie_struthers]

 


I would love to rebuild the 5th green at Twisted Dune to resemble Foxy , even if its not a direct copy. Kind of fumbled the ball on two of the greens at TD , five being one of them. It's certainly playable , and was designed to be a breather after a tough stretch of holes . This being said , more quirk and less fairness would make the golf course better  for it !

[Bill_McBride]

For the record, I once saw Mike Whitaker make a kick-in birdie on Foxy.

Now that I think about it, I have played or seen that hole played 800 to 1,000 times and that could be the only birdie I have ever witnessed on that hole.

Hey, I made a nice up and down four my first time around.  Wasn't that a birdie?  😜🍸

[Bill_McBride]

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this, but all the convoluted, broken ground all the way down the length of the hole in the right rough is a big part of what makes this great hole.  The hole is long enough that it's hard to play an aerial shot to the green after most average tee shots.  This causes play to the left and brings the slopes into play. 

[David_Tepper]

From the original The World Atlas of Golf:

"Ideally, the drive should draw slightly with the tilt of the fairway into a position from where a wood or long iron can faded over the corner of the hill to the green."   

[Tom_Doak]

I think the reason it's such a great hole is that if you are not going to get home in two, the place to miss is left, so you can play up into the long axis of the green with your third.  But if you get greedy and try to sneak one on, you'll miss right, which makes it very hard to even get the third shot onto the green, much less close to the hole.

But, Bill is also right, if it weren't for all the ridges coming in from the right side of the hole, you could just smash the drive out there, and not worry so much about the angle of the second shot.

[Sean_A]

There are quite a few reasons as to why Foxy is a great hole.  Unusually for me, I think one of the reasons is that the best approach is left of a quite a narrow fairway. The actual fairway area to see the target let alone have a good angle is very tight.  So, the result is it takes two cracking shots to have a chance of a 2 putt par.  On the other hand, its a shame the fingers shooting in from the right aren't cleared of much of the rough.  The landforms themselves do a great job of making recovery difficult because of angles and ball control, so it would be nice not to have to form a search party for the ball.   


Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

There are quite a few reasons as to why Foxy is a great hole.  Unusually for me, I think one of the reasons is that the best approach is left of a quite a narrow fairway. The actual fairway area to see the target let alone have a good angle is very tight.  So, the result is it takes two cracking shots to have a chance of a 2 putt par.  On the other hand, its a shame the fingers shooting in from the right aren't cleared of much of the rough.  The landforms themselves do a great job of making recovery difficult because of angles and ball control, so it would be nice not to have to form a search party for the ball.   

Ciao

As in your course tours, you are very good at analyzing strengths/weaknesses and then clearly describing them. Plus, for me your golfing tastes are spot on. It really is a shame that so many complaints that architects hear come from self-described low handicappers; they probably do pay most of the bills in the high-end golfing world, but are such crybabies when it comes to a course/hole/green showing them up as less the golfers than they'd like to believe. Mid and higher handicappers don't need our egos stroked or soothed, and love the demand for smart plays and two cracking good shots to a tricky green more than many architects realize. It's only the stupid, silly/meaningless shots with faux dangers sprinkled around like confetti that are annoying, at least for anyone who wants to feel engaged with and exhilirated by the game and the golf course.

[Tommy Williamsen]

[quote author=Peter Pallotta link=topic=63977.msg1523368#msg1523368 date=1482892711
 It really is a shame that so many complaints that architects hear come from self-described low handicappers; they probably do pay most of the bills in the high-end golfing world, but are such crybabies when it comes to a course/hole/green showing them up as less the golfers than they'd like to believe. Mid and higher handicappers don't need our egos stroked or soothed, and love the demand for smart plays and two cracking good shots to a tricky green more than many architects realize. It's only the stupid, silly/meaningless shots with faux dangers sprinkled around like confetti that are annoying, at least for anyone who wants to feel engaged with and exhilirated by the game and the golf course.



Peter, I don't want to nit pick but I have been between a 1&6 for some fifty-five years. Maybe it's because I know how to play a hole like foxy. My first time around Dornoch I knew what was coming and still made a bogey. My second time I played it I hit it short of the green and relied on my short game to make four. The same applies to a great many holes. My long game isn't what it used to be but I can still get it in the hole. Most of us low handicappers aren't "crybabies."

[Thomas Dai]

A Foxy template question - if you moved the tees up and played the hole from say roughly the middle of the fairway at a distance of between 120-230 yds would we herein and others rave about it as a great par-3?
Atb

[JESII]

Tommy - I think what Peter meant was that most crybabies are low handicappers.

[Sean_A]

There are quite a few reasons as to why Foxy is a great hole.  Unusually for me, I think one of the reasons is that the best approach is left of a quite a narrow fairway. The actual fairway area to see the target let alone have a good angle is very tight.  So, the result is it takes two cracking shots to have a chance of a 2 putt par.  On the other hand, its a shame the fingers shooting in from the right aren't cleared of much of the rough.  The landforms themselves do a great job of making recovery difficult because of angles and ball control, so it would be nice not to have to form a search party for the ball.   

Ciao

As in your course tours, you are very good at analyzing strengths/weaknesses and then clearly describing them. Plus, for me your golfing tastes are spot on. It really is a shame that so many complaints that architects hear come from self-described low handicappers; they probably do pay most of the bills in the high-end golfing world, but are such crybabies when it comes to a course/hole/green showing them up as less the golfers than they'd like to believe. Mid and higher handicappers don't need our egos stroked or soothed, and love the demand for smart plays and two cracking good shots to a tricky green more than many architects realize. It's only the stupid, silly/meaningless shots with faux dangers sprinkled around like confetti that are annoying, at least for anyone who wants to feel engaged with and exhilirated by the game and the golf course.

Cheers Pietro


To me Foxy is an ideal long, tough hole.  The difficulty separates the good players from the rest.  Every golf course needs a few holes like this to give cocky and over-competitive handicap players a check with reality..in the big scale of golf they suck.  I don't say that to be mean, but in an effort to keep the game for 99% of us firmly in the realm of fun. 


There has been some talk recently about changes to Dornoch's 7th.  Despite a good green, the quality of that hole is miles apart and highlights why long tough holes need to be more than merely long and tough.


Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

Based on that famous, Nobel Prize-winning, statistical study published when?


From my tower, those who are not, often subjectively cast praise and aspersion about those they might just presume they know. Low handicap golfers are freaking good, so they vent when something doesn't go their way. Most days, it's just venting, like when a pro blames a spike mark, the caddie, or the same Jesus he will doubtlessly praise on Sunday and when he next wins.


Here's a thread-stealing question: who was the last, mid/high handicapper to remain as such, despite concentrated, consistent practice and competition? I don't know one, either. Once you commit to improving your game and do it properly, you improve. How desperate you are for low-handicap status, determines your pace of improvement.


Once you reach a new level of skill, you never look at course challenges and architectural nuance the way you did when you had less skill. Those who remain lifelong mid/high handicap golfers, experience only a portion of the landscape.

Tommy - I think what Peter meant was that most crybabies are low handicappers.

[JESII]

Funny Ron - a crybaby vents when things don't go their way...


20 handicap players tend to blame themselves while scratch handicaps tend to blame the course. Neither are correct but the published study you seek is 30 years experience.

[Brad Tufts]

I've always thought the genius in Foxy's green (after three plays, two in '99, one in '11) is that a "good" second misses just left, leaving a long pitch/chip to a green almost exactly at my eye level at 5'9" of height.  As soon as the green surface gets at or above my eye line, it really changes the perception game to something like hitting around a blind corner.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()