[Thomas Dai]

We hear a lot about great holes and read/produce lists of imaginary courses made up of them. But a sometimes mentioned counter is that the overall sum is greater than the parts. And many courses do seem to have a quiet, understated, perhaps almost unrecognised, flow to them which somehow brings the round together.


What would be some examples of stretches of holes which flow nicely together not because they are all splendid holes in their own right but because there are one (or more) breather or seemingly lessor holes within the stretch which somehow plays a part in holding the flow together?


And what part does the green-to-next-tee walk play in such flow.


Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thomas,


I’ve seen both Tom Doak and Jeff Brauer say on here a few times that a great golf course is usually a course with the most number of great holes... and that great holes should be sought above all else.


But I’d prefer to sacrifice a few great holes for a routing that flows seamlessly and elegantly with no awkward moments or weak question marks.


There are a number of these slightly more understated courses that are getting lost in the current desire for photogenic wow moments on otherwise less than perfect wholes.


Sometimes you need serenity.

[Matthew Rose]

I actually think the inland holes at Pebble Beach helped my experience. For me, that was such an intense moment in time that I almost needed a respite from it. I also played better golf over those holes.

Maybe 11-12-13 aren't the greatest holes there, but they allowed me to catch my breath after an exhilarating 90 minutes. Maybe 18 straight holes at that level might have been too much.

[Peter Pallotta]

The only great course I know from playing is Crystal Downs. Rarely have I read anything much about the Par 3s there, but I think they're a wonderful set of golf holes, in part because of their 'simplicity' (for lack of a better word) -- a pleasing and useful and needed contrast to the many famous Par 4s and the great Par 5 8th, all of them loaded to the brim with 'architecture' and choices.

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas,


I’ve seen both Tom Doak and Jeff Brauer say on here a few times that a great golf course is usually a course with the most number of great holes... and that great holes should be sought above all else.


But I’d prefer to sacrifice a few great holes for a routing that flows seamlessly and elegantly with no awkward moments or weak question marks.


There are a number of these slightly more understated courses that are getting lost in the current desire for photogenic wow moments on otherwise less than perfect wholes.


Sometimes you need serenity.

Ally:


I think you misunderstand me.


There are plenty of great holes in the world that aren't "wow" holes.


I agree with you that 18 "wow" holes would be overwhelming to some degree, but hardly any course really has 18 of those.


Many people think labeling something a "breather" hole means it hasn't got character.  I don't think you are claiming that to be a necessary feature of a great course.


I also agree it's important for great courses to connect together seamlessly, and sometimes that's more important than getting another "wow" moment from the tee.  [But Donald Trump would disagree, and so might Mike Keiser.]  But the hole that isn't a wow, can't be poor, either.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes, the “wow” phrase was a little lazy because I know you don’t advocate that.


My term “weak” was lazy also because really I meant bad or awkward.


I would just sacrifice great holes to find a routing that feels right and doesn’t annoy me, even if this was to the detriment of how the course was perceived by the majority of thrill seekers. My major obsession is with 18 very good holes (including breathers), not individual great ones.


For right or wrong (or neither), I think this is different to the way you have answered this question in the past. Great courses are usually made up of some great holes. I’d rather settle for 18 very good ones that flow together as a coherent album rather than an album with some killer hit singles and a bit of filler.


Of course, in reality I know that you won’t accept filler (of the bad, not breather type) in just the same way that I would expect a very good eighteen holes to in fact yield the chance to turn a couple in to great.


So perhaps we’re almost coming at it from the same angle. The routing trumps the individual moments is my point.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ally,


I have too little time to respond in a manner that this topic demands but will offer the following with the hope of writing a more in depth reply later.


This is something that I have long pointed out and to me it is the most undervalued part of GCA. There are far too many people even on here who overrate spectacular settings and individual holes over the whole worth of the course and GCA. A good example of this is the new 7th at Dornoch. Yes it is a more spectacular than the current hole but I fear the course maybe lessened as a whole.


Jon

[Paul Rudovsky]

I personnel believe course "flow" is of very high importance.  Best example to me of a course with great holes and poor flow is Ellerston in NSW Australia.  I appeared to me that the individual holes were placed in the most ideal setting (in terms of basic architecture and looks")...but that left the course with a good number of 200-400 yards treks from green to next tee.


Regarding "breather" holes...I have the sense that many architects insert a "breather" hole in the middle of a round on a demanding track to try to lull the player to relax and lose concentration.  If golf its (in part) a chess match between the architect and player (I think it is in part), this strikes me as a perfectly appropriate "ploy".  And if the good golfer relaxes on a "breather" and loses concentration, resulting in a bogey when he/she was hoping for a birdie, so be it.

[Tom_Doak]

Regarding "breather" holes...I have the sense that many architects insert a "breather" hole in the middle of a round on a demanding track to try to lull the player to relax and lose concentration.  If golf its (in part) a chess match between the architect and player (I think it is in part), this strikes me as a perfectly appropriate "ploy".  And if the good golfer relaxes on a "breather" and loses concentration, resulting in a bogey when he/she was hoping for a birdie, so be it.

Paul:


A breather hole is not, usually, planned as you suggest, at least by any architects whose books I have read, or any I've known.


A breather hole comes into being when there isn't something exciting about a particular stretch of ground we must use, and we decide not to overreact to the facts on the ground.


The best example I can give you from my own work is the 12th at Pacfiic Dunes.  It is stuck smack between the two most photographed holes on the course, but you have to detour a bit inland to play it, to make space for the great 4th hole which is playing in the other direction along the ocean.  It's also a flat par five, and par fives are not the easiest holes to distinguish.


It's not the easiest hole, because it plays into the summer wind, and there is one key fairway bunker you've got to avoid with your second shot.  I reasoned that if we did a lot more than that, it would just look like we were trying too hard - like, say, the 18th hole at Royal County Down - and so it would be better to let the hole be a bit of a breather in terms of wow factor and number of hazards.  No matter what we did, it was not likely to be long remembered in between the 11th and the 13th at Pacific Dunes.


My sense is the 12th hole does hold back the course's ranking just a little bit in some panelists' minds.  I think that's an example of how panelists are not consistent in comparing modern courses to older ones . . . that hole would fit in quite well at Dornoch or Ballybunion or Portmarnock, but when you start talking about modern courses you talk more in terms of what we might have done, instead of what's there.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, the “wow” phrase was a little lazy because I know you don’t advocate that.


My term “weak” was lazy also because really I meant bad or awkward.


I would just sacrifice great holes to find a routing that feels right and doesn’t annoy me, even if this was to the detriment of how the course was perceived by the majority of thrill seekers. My major obsession is with 18 very good holes (including breathers), not individual great ones.


For right or wrong (or neither), I think this is different to the way you have answered this question in the past. Great courses are usually made up of some great holes. I’d rather settle for 18 very good ones that flow together as a coherent album rather than an album with some killer hit singles and a bit of filler.


Of course, in reality I know that you won’t accept filler (of the bad, not breather type) in just the same way that I would expect a very good eighteen holes to in fact yield the chance to turn a couple in to great.


So perhaps we’re almost coming at it from the same angle. The routing trumps the individual moments is my point.

Ally:


I don't think we are that far apart, but I agree that we are different at the end.


I maybe don't care as much about "very good holes" as you do, or as many very good players say they do.  That's because I realize I'm in the entertainment business, to some degree.  If a course hasn't got things about it that make people want to travel there, it isn't going to meet the goals of a lot of my clients, so I've got to achieve that first for those kinds of projects, even if it means having a weaker hole as part of the mix, too.  [Not that I'm going to settle for weak holes, and certainly not that I'm going to route a course like Ellerston that doesn't connect together well . . . we are on the same page there.]


Now, when I have a client like the Mourgue d'Algue family in France, who are all serious golfers - or for this project I'm building in Houston right now, a municipal course that will also host a TOUR event - you might notice that my attitude becomes a little different, and I don't go for the spectacular quite as much.  Because that's not really what they are looking for.


But if left to my own devices, I would rather build a few great holes and a decent supporting cast, than a bunch of good ones that you'll forget in a year or two.  There's a lot of "very good" holes in the world, but not everyone can create something really exceptional, and if you can, you should.     


And, let's face it, that's where many of the most beloved courses fall on the spectrum:  North Berwick and Pebble Beach would be two.  But maybe you'd rather play Portmarnock, instead?  That's the root of our differences.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


Wasn't 12 and 4 originally flip flopped?  You could have had 3 greats in a row! 


I mean I get the tease and all to get to the ocean on 4 tee, but wouldn't the flow have been better to flip em?  Could have avoided the longer walks from 3 green to 4 tee, and 11 green to 12 tee...

[Mark_Fine]

Read Tom Doak's definition of a "10" in The Doak Scale 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom,


Clearly great holes excite me and I would always aim to create them. But I think from a design point of view, I get more pleasure from coming up with a routing that flows and fits seamlessly, where all parts of the jigsaw feel in the right place.


Perhaps this is because I’m yet to actually see an 18 hole course of mine make it in to the ground and the pleasure has been theoretically trying to fit something that works in to often very tight parcels of land.


Would I rather play Portmarnock continuously rather than North Berwick? Probably not but it would be a tight run thing. I love cool features and in the end, there’s not many courses with better features than North Berwick. On the other hand, people underrate the subtleness in what seems like straightforward golf. I’ve said time and time again that a course like Portmarnock actually plays far better along the ground than a seemingly more-feature laden course like The Island next door... after playing the cool shots at The Island a few times, you eventually realise that playing some of those shots through the air serves you better. I suspect the same could be said of North Berwick. The ground game at Portmarnock never tires as a valid option.

[Tom_Doak]

Wasn't 12 and 4 originally flip flopped?  You could have had 3 greats in a row! 

I mean I get the tease and all to get to the ocean on 4 tee, but wouldn't the flow have been better to flip em?  Could have avoided the longer walks from 3 green to 4 tee, and 11 green to 12 tee...

Kalen:


Indeed, my original plan had a hole playing north where #4 now plays south, and we could have just flip flopped #4 and #12 in the routing, shortening the walks from 4 to 5 and 11 to 12.


Would people really vote for that as a better course?  Mr. Keiser thought it would be a mistake to have all of the coastal holes playing into the summer wind, and obviously just for variety it was nice to have one hole with the ocean to the right.  I also think the current #12 is better than an inland hole playing the other direction, with an uphill approach away from the ocean, toward the current tee.


You could also debate whether touching the ocean early in the round is important or not, but I think that ocean hole is certainly less lost in the shuffle at #4, than it would have been in between #11 and #13.  Indeed, that's part of what started this topic about breather holes . . . It's only natural to have a breather in between two stunning holes like that, but it wouldn't be as welcome in between #3 and #5.


Moreover, I think the walk from #3 to #4 ADDS to the course.  Yes, it's not as fast to play, but you have just gotten to the ocean and it gives you a chance to pause and reflect on it.  [I did the same thing at Barnbougle, and lots of players take a mini break when they get to the 8th tee at Old Mac, too.] 


One of the players at the Women's Public Links said when she came around the corner from #3 for the first time, she cried, because it was so beautiful.  I wouldn't give up reactions like that, so that you can finish two minutes faster.  That really isn't why you go to Bandon, is it?

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I certainly can't argue any of that! My last post was mostly in jest, but not doubt that would have been a tough choice to go either way there.

I mostly liked the unusual hole sequence on the back 9, (only 2 par 4s) and it was nice that 3 of the holes playing into that summer wind, (or mostly so) were par 3s. 13 is spectacular but no doubt ate my lunch score-wise, which I didn't even care.

P.S.  And yes I tried to talk my wife to moving to Bandon because we can both work remote.  But she has to travel alot and the airport thing was a no go...

[Paul Rudovsky]

Regarding "breather" holes...I have the sense that many architects insert a "breather" hole in the middle of a round on a demanding track to try to lull the player to relax and lose concentration.  If golf its (in part) a chess match between the architect and player (I think it is in part), this strikes me as a perfectly appropriate "ploy".  And if the good golfer relaxes on a "breather" and loses concentration, resulting in a bogey when he/she was hoping for a birdie, so be it.

Paul:

Tom--


Was not trying to imply that all "breathers" are that way...but I think some are...or perhaps while not planned that way, end up with the same effect.  My example would be #8 at Quaker Ridge.


Interesting your comments about #12 at Pacific.  Yes, #11 and #13 are both brilliant (as is #4 right next to #12).  But 18 brilliant holes in a row may be too much to absorb.  I happen to really like #12 as a clean simple hole that works, especially the way the green is tucked to the left.  It also reminds me whenever I play it of the story and importance of the gorse removal in terms of Keiser getting permitting approval (because of gorse's flammability and the historical fires)...the pathway of the straight flat fairway reminds me of the write up about that in "Dream Golf" 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()