Iconic holes that began life as controversial

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am thinking of holes that might never be built today but are in no danger of being blown-up, like number six at Riviera. I think of Four Streams GC, where I used to belong. Number eleven was reviled by most members but now no one really wants to change it.
I don't know for sure but I wouldn't be surprised that seven at Pine Valley was thought too penal when it was built.
Others?

[Ira Fishman]

17 at Cypress Point


Probably not iconic yet but 14 at Bandon Trails.


And then there is the tree on Number 4 at Mid Pines (always a favorite answer).


Ira

[Kyle Harris]

...and survived?


I have to imagine that holes such as #12 at Garden City and Mae West at Bel-Air were controversial in their day. After all, why else would you change them!?


#7 at Pine Valley came to mind, but it seems to have been an idea revered enough by Mr. A.W. Tillinghast to have been copied elsewhere after his idea came to fruition at Pine Valley.

Based on some contemporary writing from Bernard Darwin, one could suggest that the entirety of Pine Valley fit this category.

[Tim Martin]

I think Kyle is onto something with Pine Valley and #10 fits into the controversial category as anything not on the putting surface has the possibility of being a card wrecker. The 2 or 20 hole #14 at Engineers is another where anything other than being on the green is shit. These two holes play 140 and 120 respectively from the member tees.

[Kyle Harris]

I think Kyle is onto something with Pine Valley and #10 fits into the controversial category as anything not on the putting surface has the possibility of being a card wrecker. The 2 or 20 hole #14 at Engineers is another where anything other than being on the green is shit. These two holes play 140 and 120 respectively from the member tees.

Was #10 nearly as controversial before The Devil's Aperture?

I think #2 may be our candidate here - especially on the engineering side with how many times they had to re-work the front of the green.

Anyone want to wager how soon I get the phone call from The Lurker(tm) after this?

[Tim Martin]

I think Kyle is onto something with Pine Valley and #10 fits into the controversial category as anything not on the putting surface has the possibility of being a card wrecker. The 2 or 20 hole #14 at Engineers is another where anything other than being on the green is shit. These two holes play 140 and 120 respectively from the member tees.

Was #10 nearly as controversial before The Devil's Aperture?

I think #2 may be our candidate here - especially on the engineering side with how many times they had to re-work the front of the green.

Anyone want to wager how soon I get the phone call from The Lurker(tm) after this?

Kyle-When was the DA installed? Thanks.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There are obviously any number of holes from GB&I which are iconic and in many cases, still have a bit of a whiff of controversy about them.


The question is how controversial they were at the time? They may have become more controversial rather than less and I guess the latter is what you are aiming at?

[Carl Rogers]

Hole no. 1 at Tobacco Road?

[Cal Seifert]

Hole no. 1 at Tobacco Road?

Or almost hole at TR?  That course brings out some polarizing opinions.

[Thomas Dai]

Some of the very oldest iconic holes, even if environmental regulations permitted, wouldn’t be allowed these days by the health and safety lobby.
However, back in centuries gone by there, weren’t so many folks on the planet and life was cheap in a then more non-ambulance chasing world. Plus a hit on the back of the head by a feathery probably wasn’t as injury causing as a hit by a modern generation ball.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm reminded of Bob Crosby's excellent essay on the Behr-Crane debates re: St Andrews-The Old Course, and the changes (and rationales for change) that Crane advocated. I'm also reminded of the line from "Chinatown" about how people/things can become 'respectable' over time.
P

[Joe Zucker]

How was the 10th at Riviera received when it was built?  I don't know how much the hole has changed, but I can't imagine hitting 1930s clubs and balls into that green.  Even with slower greens, it would be extremely tough to hold a 70 - 100 yard shot into tat shallow green I would think.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I wonder how it was received when 13 at North Berwick was built with the green on the far side of a stone fence?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Some of the very oldest iconic holes, even if environmental regulations permitted, wouldn’t be allowed these days by the health and safety lobby.
However, back in centuries gone by there, weren’t so many folks on the planet and life was cheap in a then more non-ambulance chasing world. Plus a hit on the back of the head by a feathery probably wasn’t as injury causing as a hit by a modern generation ball.
Atb

I’m not sure we can say they’re not allowed, just that there aren’t many architects brave enough to build them.... I - for one - don’t believe blindness automatically translates as unsafe.

[V. Kmetz]

1. I don't know if the controversy ever became a public one or existed after the private unveiling to the club, but the story goes that when RTJ re-did the 4th hole of Baltusrol Lower, making it into 190 carry over a newly constructed pond, the Brl. leadership was deeply concerned it was too difficult to reasonably play...to which RTJ teed one up and knocked in for an ace, quelling any extant argument.

When I think about...190 all carry over a pond was pretty bold for the 1950s, certainly for member play, even at softer yardages.

2. Maybe it hasn't been mentioned yet, because it STILL IS controversial to many minds (but has no chance of being blown up) is the 17th at TPC Sawgrass (perhaps more than a few holes there and in Dye's oeuvre).

cheers   vk

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder how it was received when 13 at North Berwick was built with the green on the far side of a stone fence?

Before 1895-1900 there was very little discussion of golf architecture per se, so I don't think you could really label any hole from that era "controversial".  By the time people started talking about those holes, they were an accepted part of the course.

[Tom_Doak]

How was the 10th at Riviera received when it was built?  I don't know how much the hole has changed, but I can't imagine hitting 1930s clubs and balls into that green.  Even with slower greens, it would be extremely tough to hold a 70 - 100 yard shot into tat shallow green I would think.

There is an old photo of the 10th green without any bunker at the front right, but I think the hole only existed that way for a short time before the bunker was added ... maybe even before the course was formally opened.  Anyway, I have never heard much discussion of that hole as "controversial".  In the early days it would have been more necessary to play to the left off the tee and get a good line into the green so you could hold it, but it wasn't extremely tough as long as you were playing into the length of the green.  In the 1960's and 70's the hole was dismissed as too easy - the chairman of the USGA Green Section recommended blowing it up and making a better hole! - but it still wasn't controversial for golfers at large.  Now of course it's untouchable.

[Tom_Doak]

I have to imagine that holes such as #12 at Garden City and Mae West at Bel-Air were controversial in their day. After all, why else would you change them!?

I hadn't thought of it but I'm very proud that I have been able to restore two of the old controversial holes.


I'm thinking the Sitwell Park green would complete the trifecta.

[Tom_Doak]

In general, this is an interesting topic, because of the various reactions.  Some holes are quickly tinkered with.  Others were done away with entirely, only to come back in recent years.  Yet others are conversation pieces, but aren't on the chopping block.  [For example, the 13th at North Berwick was mentioned, but what about the 16th green there?  Lots of people think it's over the top, but I don't know that anyone really wants to do anything about it.]



Pine Valley might have been controversial, but no one associated with it was going to change a thing, out of respect for Mr. Crump.  [Well, I guess they did take the pimple out of the 18th green.] 


Contrast that with the TPC at Sawgrass when it opened, where many holes were criticized.  I was actually standing between Deane Beman and Pete Dye when the Commissioner said, "Well, if three players all say the same thing about the same hole, we will look at it, but they probably won't agree on much."  Beman was as invested in the design of the course as Mr. Dye was, if not more.  But, it kept changing, because today's TOUR does not want the players to be vocally negative about the courses they play.


Tobacco Road was supposed to be controversial, and they embraced that from the start.  That's their marketing plan.


Likewise, the 14th at Bandon Trails has been changed at least a couple of times, because retail golfers [including Mr. Keiser] thought it was too severe.  I don't know if it's still controversial now, or not.  Interestingly, when we were building Streamsong, Bill Coore told me he thought my 5th hole on the Blue course "might be [my] 14th at Bandon Trails," but I honestly haven't heard boo about that hole since the course opened.


I'm trying to think what would be the most controversial hole I've ever built.  It's much easier to generate controversy when there are pros and TV cameras around, and I've mostly stayed away from that.  Holes like 16 at Pacific Dunes are considered difficult / nasty / etc., but I've never heard much rumbling about changing them.  The 13th green at Barnbougle is dismissed by some as silly or unfair or whatever, but plenty of people are still going back there, so it isn't that controversial.  We've made modest changes to the 1st green at Stone Eagle, and to a couple at Rock Creek, but I'm not sure anyone really even noticed.


I guess the green I've heard the most about is the 4th at Lost Dunes, which I sort of expected; but at the same time it's funny, because it's not even the most severe green on the front nine!

[Ira Fishman]

Was Yale 9 originally considered controversial?


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I have to imagine that holes such as #12 at Garden City and Mae West at Bel-Air were controversial in their day. After all, why else would you change them!?

I hadn't thought of it but I'm very proud that I have been able to restore two of the old controversial holes.


I'm thinking the Sitwell Park green would complete the trifecta.

Tom,

Given you updated the 16th at Pasa, which has gotta be the next closest thing, you can almost make a case that you already have...


P.S. You can put me in the category of those who have questioned the 16th at PD....but only due to the relative size of the collection area and where it collects to..

[Tom_Doak]

I have to imagine that holes such as #12 at Garden City and Mae West at Bel-Air were controversial in their day. After all, why else would you change them!?

I hadn't thought of it but I'm very proud that I have been able to restore two of the old controversial holes.


I'm thinking the Sitwell Park green would complete the trifecta.

Tom,

Given you updated the 16th at Pasa, which has gotta be the next closest thing, you can almost make a case that you already have...

We didn't really change the contours on the 16th, just expanded it.  We did soften the contours on the 11th, but it had already been messed with.

[Tommy Williamsen]

So this begs the question, "Should architects design a hole they know will be controversial and even hated, hoping it will become iconic?" Do they push the envelope a bit once in a while? I suspect TD answers yes, especially on the greens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,


I suspect architects are like football coaches, who tend to get more conservative over time.


As to designing hopefully iconic holes, if you believe in form follows function, then designing to be iconic by pushing the envelope suggests the Tobacco Road business mantra mentioned by Tom.  Be famous by being different.  Yes, that probably fits within form follows function, if the owner makes the gamble that being different will be profitable.

[Tom_Doak]

So this begs the question, "Should architects design a hole they know will be controversial and even hated, hoping it will become iconic?" Do they push the envelope a bit once in a while? I suspect TD answers yes, especially on the greens.

You don’t have to hope it becomes iconic, but if you aren’t pushing the envelope enough to make the golfers think a little - and complain occasionally- then you are just cashing checks.


When we were building High Pointe the superintendent said if 50% of people loved it and the other 50% hated it, we had found the sweet spot.  I’m more conservative than that now, but if there ever comes a project where I’m not pushing the boundary at all, I will retire and leave it to the young guys.  (But they should not get too hopeful for that outcome just yet.)