[Bill Brightly]

In it's day, the Biarritz surely was a fun hole to play. A low running shot was obviously required: golf balls could not fly 225 yards in the air. I imagine smiles on the face of golfers who hit the proper low running shot that landed on the approach, disappeared down the slope, then reappeared on the putting surface. It had to be exhilarating.


I'll posit that less than 2% of single-digit golfers would contemplate that shot today. They'll simply fly it to the green. (Except Fishers Island where the turf is so firm that a run-up seems mandatory.)


I'm getting older and shorter. Pretty soon my driver will land on the front section and then (hopefully) roll up the slope. Theoretically, I could hit a low rescue club or three wood now and attempt the low running shot. The problem is if I mishit that shot (which is really hard to keep straight) I'll end up in one of the front bunkers leaving a 40+ yard sand shot and I'll have to play really well to make a bogey. So I try to fly it to the green, even if I need driver from the tips. I'll take my chances from the bunkers along side of the rear portion of the green.


I think this template became obsolete long before the USGA choked and allowed the Pro V1. That ball simply delayed me 20+ years before I truly need to run it up. So when did technology allow a majority of golfers to hit the green on a fly?



 

[Peter Flory]

Here was part of a description of the original 8th at Lido:
"The hole is a perfect one shotter and with a deep depression in front of the green a high tee ball with stop must be used here to get the best results."

I believe this was from around 1920. 

But I agree with your premise that the original strategy has changed for top players.  Still a fun and challenging hole though.

[Kyle Harris]

When was the first one built?


Whenever that was.


Or is the premise flawed? I dunno, I don't think many are averaging much below 3 on the hole, all told.

[Jason Thurman]

Here was part of a description of the original 8th at Lido:
"The hole is a perfect one shotter and with a deep depression in front of the green a high tee ball with stop must be used here to get the best results."

I believe this was from around 1920. 

But I agree with your premise that the original strategy has changed for top players.  Still a fun and challenging hole though.

Funny, I thought of Peter while reading the original post. He can fly a hickory shafted club well over 225 yards.


And it may be that that's always been how strong players played the Biarritz, most of the time. Even with the ability to carry a ball a long way, it's still a difficult hole that challenges the better player.


And for weaker players who's shots fly lower and run out more anyways, the swale offers a wrinkle that probably makes for more fun than the average driver-or-more par 3.


It seems to me that the central challenge of architecture is to create interest for players of all levels, in spite of their very different playing abilities. In that sense, maybe the Biarritz is still alive and well.

[Tom_Doak]

When was the first one built?


Whenever that was.


Or is the premise flawed?

I'm more in this camp.


While the Redan and the Eden were named the two best short holes in the UK back in 1905, and the Short hole at National has had many acolytes from then til now, I can't think of a single contemporary account that suggested the Biarritz (any particular one) was a great hole back in the days when it supposedly "worked as intended". 


Well, maybe the one at Yale was considered great - but that's the one that never played "as intended" because of the high tee.


Was it ever great, or just familiar because Raynor built so many of them?

[David Wuthrich]

I think it is both great and familiar.  I agree with Jason that all types of players can enjoy and be challenged by the hole.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure of exact year, but suspect it was when they started irrigating greens in any fashion.  I have seen irrigation plans as early as 1916, and I bet they sold like pet rocks in their initial offerings (high tech stocks? I don't know, trying to be funny w/o coffee this morning.....)


And, I'm in the "never was" camp over the "has been" regarding the B.  Especially for a long par 3.  Yes you can offer a few multiple tees so all player are hitting fw wood or driver, and those clubs didn't fly as high as they do now.  But even back then, on any of those tees, a large percentage of golfers would be in between clubs to make that shot work, no?


That said, I have built four over 35 years -Two on long par 3's, one each on short par 4, and a short par 5.  I tend to think that the wild contours and divided green works better for short driveable par 4 holes or reachable par 5 holes these days, but the club selection issue is similar in any era.  But, as noted, when the pin is front or back, at least you can hit the high fliger to a smaller target with bigger putting consequences for missing.  I don't think a sub divided green for a 250+ shot these days is necessarily good design (i.e., would expect many players to think it "unfair," too much of a penalty for a long approach, or at least beyond their abilities to execute consistently.


And, as mentioned, the short, Eden, Redan, triple plateau and a few other MacRaynor greens have stood up pretty well as concepts.


If any green concept raises my suspicion that we shouldn't just revere the old guys as having done no wrong more than most other features.  As a corollary, it has always made me question whether every old green is worth restoring.  I mean, if Raynor decided on the same 18 greens over and over, it is unlikely that the design was a case of "form follows function" then, and even less so now, given how the game has changed.

[Rick Lane]

I just love a Biarritz.  Especially ones where you can run it a long way on the ground such as Piping Rock.  There are lots of threads on this site about distance and the 1 percent of golfers who can hit a 7 iron 200 yards and how golf courses can’t be designed for the pros, etc etc.   The 99 percent of the rest of us are playing these old courses still within the design intent?  So adding it all up, I don’t think technology has killed a 200 yard Biarritz?  I checked google earth, and the abandoned Biarritz at CC Fairfield was about 230 to the swale, at ground level.  Would be a hoot to play today no?   

[Jimmy Muratt]

I think this template became obsolete long before the USGA choked and allowed the Pro V1. That ball simply delayed me 20+ years before I truly need to run it up. So when did technology allow a majority of golfers to hit the green on a fly?

How has a 220+ yard Biarritz been made obsolete by technology?   Even if a long player is hitting a mid iron, it still is a challenging shot to a difficult green.   A good player can still flight the ball down when needed to play a lower, running shot.  Is a 220+ yard hole easier now with technology than it was 30 years ago?   Of course, but that doesn't make the Biarritz obsolete.

The Biarritz is still a very unique and difficult hole that is enjoyable to play.   That's a pretty good combination.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Actually, is it?  I'm like you and love the unconventional and unique holes. As I mentioned, I have built a few, played a few others. 


I like them more than most, but come away "Meh" from a Biarritz hole most of the time.  You either just hit the standard aerial shot the right distance to either tier (again, seems like a subdivided green into two targets is more in line with a shorter shot) and when I try to manufacture a rolling shot, it is rarely firm enough to judge well (not to mention the unfamiliarity of such a shot.) If I were playing for score, it would be a low % shot.  And, if I play the shot just for the fun of it, its really not all that fun. 


I get enough low running shots in the short game and recovering from under trees to satisfy my desire to play one, without having a long iron run up from the tee.

[Jeff Schley]

The Biarritz is still a very unique and difficult hole that is enjoyable to play.   That's a pretty good combination.

I love Biarritz holes for they are not numerous in number and typically on a classic throwback course. If a Biarritz par 3 is to easy, I'm an even worse golfer than I though.

[Alex Miller]

I think the Biarritz template needs updating, or at least there are modern interpretations which can evolve the Biarritz into a charmer.


The problems are obvious: with modern clubs and balls conditions need to be perfect to even provide an option for skilled golfers (or just those playing from the appropriate tee) to land the ball on the front portion of the green and run it through the swale.


Some options for improving the effectiveness of the Biarritz:

• build them on slightly uphill holes where angle of descent is lower
• build them downwind or on strong windy sites in general, so the risk/reward of the high shot is more balanced with the low one
• have the front landing pad tilted slightly downhill, so that the modern high flight high spin ball can release to the back more often
• only build them on sites where firm conditions can be expected for the majority of the season

[Carl Rogers]

How would an assessment of the Biarritz at hole 8, Old Mac read?

[Kalen Braley]

Put me in the camp of "I think they're great" as are.

These days I can't think of many 3.5 par 3s that aren't either very long and/or a small green encircled by bunkers. The Biarritz seems to be a nice combination of toughness that also presents various options for both the good and lesser players to find success.  I also think it'd be interesting to see some par 3s with a Double Plateau green, preferably not long like the Biarritz thou.

[Alex Miller]

How would an assessment of the Biarritz at hole 8, Old Mac read?

I played Old Mac 2 weeks ago in the prevailing wind (left to right and slightly down (which as a sidenote, did not change my views on the course vs the south wind) and pretty standard links conditions (certainly firm enough).


We had a back right pin, so set on a shelf behind the swale, perhaps with the most amount of slope just short of the hole. I did take more club than the yardage would indicate in order to hit a 3/4 shot and get the ball to chase to pin high. This pin in particular called for this shot as anything pin high or beyond, even left of the hole, was left with a very difficult 2 putt.


I hit my shot as intended and it stayed left of the pin toward the middle of the green. It landed on the front pad and rolled through the bottom of the swale partially up the slope. The swale on this hole is more pronounced on the sides of the green than in the middle, so I put myself in a pretty good spot and 2 putted. My playing partner meanwhile played a shot to carry pin-high and pulled it left, leaving a very difficult 2 putt. He was able to hold the green but got down in 3 for a bogey.


All in all, I think it worked as intended, and the downslope in the front part of the green helped me get the ball further into the green. I believe it was one of the more difficult pin positions on that green and played fine, but I'm not sure I liked the fact that the swale fell to both sides making it so difficult to get at the right pin.


I would only add that overall if it had called for a longer shot, I think it would play as intended more often. In fact switching the length of the redan and biarritz at Old Mac would likely result in more reasonable challenges on both holes.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

How many "pure" Biarritzes are left? Like Fisher's Island where the front is maintained at approach/fairway height-of-cut, and the green behind? I feel like most of them are greens HOC the whole way, the biarritz pad, the swale, and the back.


I believe the Biarritz swale by itself is a great feature and is used more often than we think. Fazio of all people uses a Biarritz-like swale 20-30 yards short of the front edge at my club on a short par 4, and two par 5s. These give the player an opportunity to use the downslope to stretch a shorter shot all the way to the green if properly executed, and have the characteristic of the ball disappearing only to reappear. They are my favorite features on that particular course.


Perhaps short par 4s and par 5's are now the best applications for biarritz swales?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I should add one of my Biarritz greens was actually across the line of play.  In a recent golf outing with architects and builders, everyone in the group seemed to think that was nice, especially since they set the pin in the valley that day, and a few of us had some really snake putts when our approaches landed in the valley.


Also, I think most modern versions have some alterations from the stiff Raynor, straight across swale version, specifically, a bit of wiggle or shape to the valley itself, and often, in deference to modern riding mowers, a shallower valley at slightly lesser gradient.

[Bill Brightly]

Perhaps short par 4s and par 5's are now the best applications for biarritz swales?

That is a pretty cool idea. You are suggesting that on short par fives when guys are going for the green in two, (or when they go for the green on a short par four) they will pay a heavy from when they miss left or right, leaving a 30-50 yard bunker shot which they really do not want. I think CBM would approve!

[David Ober]

When was the first one built?


Whenever that was.


Or is the premise flawed?

I'm more in this camp.


While the Redan and the Eden were named the two best short holes in the UK back in 1905, and the Short hole at National has had many acolytes from then til now, I can't think of a single contemporary account that suggested the Biarritz (any particular one) was a great hole back in the days when it supposedly "worked as intended". 


Well, maybe the one at Yale was considered great - but that's the one that never played "as intended" because of the high tee.


Was it ever great, or just familiar because Raynor built so many of them?

Isn't the problem with the Biarritz nowadays that putting from in the swale is just not all that difficult? There's a wonderful biarritz green complex at the new Santa Ana CC, and it's just not that tough to put from the bottom of it to the top pin position, and it's quite a gnarly, large depression you're in. Perhaps in the old days with a blade putter, bumpy, slow greens, it was decidedly more difficult. In fact, I'm certain it was.


Thoughts?

[David Ober]

So in replying to the original question, I would say:


Probably the 1970's or early 80's? When green mowing equipment got better and better and we could maintain true putting surfaces year-round. Couple that with better putter technology, and it no longer was much of a "penalty" -- if at all -- to be in the bottom of the swale for good to expert players.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Probably the 1970's or early 80's? When green mowing equipment got better and better and we could maintain true putting surfaces year-round. Couple that with better putter technology, and it no longer was much of a "penalty" -- if at all -- to be in the bottom of the swale for good to expert players.

I don't agree that hitting a 35-foot putt (at a minimum?) up a four-foot-high ridge is "no longer much of a 'penalty'," and could make an argument that it was easier when greens were slower, as two-putting from distances is easier on slower greens (and making short- to mid-range putts is easier on faster, smoother greens). I think they're going to three-putt quite a bit more often than you think, particularly if they're not putting straight up the slope and are coming at it from an angle.

[David Ober]

Probably the 1970's or early 80's? When green mowing equipment got better and better and we could maintain true putting surfaces year-round. Couple that with better putter technology, and it no longer was much of a "penalty" -- if at all -- to be in the bottom of the swale for good to expert players.

I don't agree that hitting a 35-foot putt (at a minimum?) up a four-foot-high ridge is "no longer much of a 'penalty'," and could make an argument that it was easier when greens were slower, as two-putting from distances is easier on slower greens (and making short- to mid-range putts is easier on faster, smoother greens). I think they're going to three-putt quite a bit more often than you think, particularly if they're not putting straight up the slope and are coming at it from an angle.

We probably have some data on that, I would bet. Has there been a Biarritz green on the PGA Tour? If so, we would have ShotLink data on it, and should be able to figure putting numbers from "in the swale."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We probably have some data on that, I would bet. Has there been a Biarritz green on the PGA Tour? If so, we would have ShotLink data on it, and should be able to figure putting numbers from "in the swale."

We don't have data from the 70s, though. Fox Chapel has a Biarritz, and the seniors played a major there for a few years.

[Peter Flory]

Perhaps short par 4s and par 5's are now the best applications for biarritz swales?

That is a pretty cool idea. You are suggesting that on short par fives when guys are going for the green in two, (or when they go for the green on a short par four) they will pay a heavy from when they miss left or right, leaving a 30-50 yard bunker shot which they really do not want. I think CBM would approve!

That was the idea at the original 10th hole at Erin Hills. 

[David Ober]

We probably have some data on that, I would bet. Has there been a Biarritz green on the PGA Tour? If so, we would have ShotLink data on it, and should be able to figure putting numbers from "in the swale."

We don't have data from the 70s, though. Fox Chapel has a Biarritz, and the seniors played a major there for a few years.

My bad. I meant "recent."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()