Can a Great Hole - Part Deux

[Thomas Dai]

What’s wrong with the middle of the green? Isn’t lowest score one of the games primary objectives? Sometimes the middle of the green is the best place to aim an approach shot. And somethings the middle of a green is a cool spot for something architecturally interesting and strategically cunning like a wee slightly graded hump or hollow or ridge etc.
Atb

[JESII]

The middle of the green statement is simply saying, a great hole doesn't have to rely solely on its best, most difficult/interesting hole location. The hole and green will have enough interest that the mundane hole locations are also enjoyable.


From afar, I speculated that #12 at Augusta may not hold the standard to the non-Sunday pin. Bob Crosby corrected me with good supporting evidence.




Regarding Mucci's position; that was simply a debate tactic. So long as I don't make absolute judgements on a course, I can engage in the conversation of one I haven't seen.

[Tim Martin]

The middle of the green statement is simply saying, a great hole doesn't have to rely solely on its best, most difficult/interesting hole location. The hole and green will have enough interest that the mundane hole locations are also enjoyable.


From afar, I speculated that #12 at Augusta may not hold the standard to the non-Sunday pin. Bob Crosby corrected me with good supporting evidence.




Regarding Mucci's position; that was simply a debate tactic. So long as I don't make absolute judgements on a course, I can engage in the conversation of one I haven't seen.

Jim-I agree that you can engage in the conversation on a hole like # 12 at Augusta which is familiar to virtually everyone as a result of watching the Masters. For courses that you haven’t played, walked or viewed as a tournament course on television I wouldn’t be as inclined to value your opinion. Finally I agree that someone wouldn’t need to play a course dozens of times as Pat insisted on to make a valid contribution.

[JESII]

Pat was always just looking for an angle...someone once referred to conversations (debates?...brow beatings?!?) with him as an intellectual exercise more than a conversation. Not far off but always fun from my perspective.


But Tm, people get into trouble when they pass judgement without the appropriate context, right? I believe I can discuss your home course with you and make observations and ask questions. To suggest otherwise (as Pat liked to do) serves to stifle conversation but admittedly, I can't pass judgements without scrutiny.

[Peter Pallotta]

Underpinning Pat's attitude and approach was the fervent belief that, even in the supposedly 'subjective' world of golf course architecture, there a) could still be a single *right* answer, and many wrong answers, b) that *he* had the right answer, and that in disagreeing with him you clearly didn't, and were wrong, and c) he had the right answer *because* he'd played a course many times in many different conditions.
I often found his 'objective' certainty and contempt for opposing positions sort of refreshing: he made explicit what for many others was implicit, and was thus simply much more honest than most.
But the question is whether multiple plays in many conditions can and do give one the 'right' answer.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Peter,


They give much closer to a right answer. I was certainly being a little off the cuff stating that I thought Pat’s comment was the most important assertion ever on this website; and I certainly understand where Tom is coming from.


But unlike him, I don’t believe that thinking more plays are needed to truly evaluate a course should stifle discussion. Certain people are excellent at evaluating a golf course after just one spin. And that is generally enough to put it in the right ballpark. But the fine tuning up or down comes with multiple plays. And it is that fine tuned score that is truly reflective of a course.


For instance, there are many courses where the subtleties and playing strategies reveal themselves slowly… There are just as many courses that put it all out there on first visit - where we get carried away with spectacular holes or great views or quirk or fun shots. But where the course tends to ask the same questions on every round. A Doak 5 on initial view can probably make it to a Doak 7 (in the playing sense). A Doak 7 on initial view could probably devalue down to a 6.


If we say that people can really evaluate a course on one or two plays, we are encouraging in your face architecture, features and holes. We are rewarding magazine design over great golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Ally. I understand all of that, and can't really disagree with any of it.
But, because it's you who wrote it, I might find myself saying/asking:
Is it possible that, in the actual playing, most links courses reveal their subtleties and strategies more slowly than just about any  parkland courses does, even the top flight ones -- regardless of how in your face (or not) the architecture or the number of times you play them?

[Kalen Braley]

I think the spirit or intent of Pat's assertion is still fundamentally sound.

Opinions are almost never binary...they are often strewn across the spectrum.  Someone could have an opinion based on having never seen the course in person, or perhaps 1 time walking it, or playing it once, or even 5 rounds.  But holding everything else equal, the opinion I'd be most inclined to value is one who has played it dozens of times in various conditions.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Kalen, I think you summarise that quite well.




Peter, in general, I think courses need wind and firmness (real honest to goodness can’t stop the ball firmness) so that the slightest of features - whether deliberate or random - can make a difference to how a hole plays. You also need random topography rather than long curves shaped by machine. All of these aspects have a huge affect on whether greatness might take time to reveal itself. Links golf does tend to provide these conditions more often (though that doesn’t preclude a load of modern courses that mimic links conditions better than classic parklands do. Where the classic parklands sometimes win out is in their deliberate golden age strategy and greens. They all rely on architecture whereas links courses tend to rely on nature).


As an example, who on this website knows that the 7th at Baltray is such a cracking par-3 primarily because of the smallest of pimples at the back right of the green which makes a recovery from there almost impossible in 3 out of 4 winds, thus bringing the short left and much more obvious bad miss in to play on the tee-shot? I only first found that one on about my 5th or 6th play when I ended up there for the first time in a west wind. Baltray is full of these little gems / Easter eggs that you slowly learn through repeat plays.


On the other hand, I could name 3 or 4 Top-15 links courses in Ireland where I’ve learned nothing really new in 10 plays on each. And a couple of those I’ve marked down since because of it…. If the lifelong member who has lived on the links for 50 years and was club champion still can’t give you little insights that you haven’t already worked out yourself, then the subtleties probably aren’t there.

[Peter Pallotta]

Really good post, Ally, and very clear -- thanks.
I was surprised to read about the 3-4 Irish links that *haven't* surprised you, ie with new revelations over time.
Classic-deliberate golden age strategies are an interesting topic on their own. Wonderful concept those golden age strategies, but it is striking how clear-cut they can seem when a course plays damp, slow and windless.

[Mark_Fine]

What did Bobby Jones think of The Old Course at St. Andrews after his first time around 


I have always said and believed that the greatest golf courses need to be studied to be learned and one or two times around is never enough.  Think how insulting that is to an architect to say, “I played your golf course one time and I figured out everything cool and interesting about it”  


Different playing conditions of course impacts this but simply playing courses multiple times results all kinds of little nuances being uncovered that are easily missed for a variety of reasons on just a few plays. 


By the way how does a middle pin work on Riviera’s #6 hole    Almost every great hole has multiple hole locations and almost without exception some are “greater” than others 

[Sean_A]

Other than the obvious differences weather and seasons can throw up, it's the varied recovery positions which interests me most about repeat plays. I tend to learn more about courses when out of position than I do from prime positions. That's why I am often indifferent about strangling rough, narrow fairways and loads of bunkers.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean, I don’t disagree with you; although it has become such a repeated mantra that people seem to be saying it in their sleep now.


I have played many courses with nominally narrower playing corridors that have far more interesting approach shots (which is really the crux of what makes a course great) than courses with wide playing corridors. It all comes down to how intelligent the green complex is. That most definitely includes bunkering. I do agree that wider playing corridors would further exaggerate those strategies though.


If we’re talking about recovery shots around greens, then certainly; if the thought of those shots fundamentally affect where you want to hit your approach shot from. But I’ve played really well regarded links courses where the main play is to hit it down the middle and then hit it on the green. There is really nothing much to learn.


EDIT - all that said, I fear I’m taking this thread far away from its initial premise. My answer to the original question is “yes”.

[Sean_A]

Sean, I don’t disagree with you; although it has become such a repeated mantra that people seem to be saying it in their sleep now.


I have played many courses with nominally narrower playing corridors that have far more interesting approach shots (which is really the crux of what makes a course great) than courses with wide playing corridors. It all comes down to how intelligent the green complex is. That most definitely includes bunkering. I do agree that wider playing corridors would further exaggerate those strategies though.


If we’re talking about recovery shots around greens, then certainly; if the thought of those shots fundamentally affect where you want to hit your approach shot from. But I’ve played really well regarded links courses where the main play is to hit it down the middle and then hit it on the green. There is really nothing much to learn.


EDIT - all that said, I fear I’m taking this thread far away from its initial premise. My answer to the original question is “yes”.

Of course most of the time being in the middle of the fairway is hard to beat. But I am talking about what the course provides once off line. Recovery shots are the soul of golf. If that recovery temptation isn't on offer than the game is nowhere near what it should be. I play a very rudimentary course more than other, but few courses can match it for varied recovery options and temptation. Thankfully people are starting to catch on these past few years.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Ah, 'temptation', an underused word to describe an important aspect in golf.
atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,


I think you read me wrong. I was bemoaning the courses that ask you to hit it down the middle because no angle is really preferred.


But I’m not clear what you are referring to as “recovery” options. Give me an example and then I’m sure I will agree.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I think you read me wrong. I was bemoaning the courses that ask you to hit it down the middle because no angle is really preferred.

But I’m not clear what you are referring to as “recovery” options. Give me an example and then I’m sure I will agree.

I think of good recovery options (in general) as as scenario where the lie affords an opportunity to go for the green, any decent lay up area short of the green or sideways/backwards.  Give a guy options and see if he can either pull off the what should be a 1 in whatever shot to hit the green with the chance of the penalty for missing this being a kiss on the card OR maybe play the odds a bit more with some risk involved. Too often there isn't the temptation to go for the green because of trees (Worcester is a classic for this), rough (tons of links) or loads of bunkers in echelon up the fairway or near the green.

Provide space to allow a guy to hang himself, but have fun doing it.

Ciao

[Sven Nilsen]

Going back to the original post, seems like we're talking about a few different kinds of variables.


Weather Influence on Turf Conditions - Any course, great or not, is not going to play to its potential if the turf conditions are off.  TOC in snow is not TOC in the middle of the summer.  The same applies to any kind of wet season v. dry season delineation.  In my judgement, weather has no place in the conversation about greatness, except perhaps in extreme cases.


Wind Direction - Where two or more prevailing wind directions exist, the best designs will have already factored them in.  And that is part of the joy of courses built where the wind blows, in that the challenge is never really the same from day to day. 


In the background of all of this is set up.  There's nothing wrong with the flexibility built in to move tee locations around so as not to over- or underwhelm the player.  If anything, its courses that stick to scorecard yardages on a 365 basis that probably do the most harm.


Sven

[Tim Martin]

Going back to the original post, seems like we're talking about a few different kinds of variables.


Weather Influence on Turf Conditions - Any course, great or not, is not going to play to its potential if the turf conditions are off.  TOC in snow is not TOC in the middle of the summer.  The same applies to any kind of wet season v. dry season delineation.  In my judgement, weather has no place in the conversation about greatness, except perhaps in extreme cases.


Wind Direction - Where two or more prevailing wind directions exist, the best designs will have already factored them in.  And that is part of the joy of courses built where the wind blows, in that the challenge is never really the same from day to day. 


In the background of all of this is set up.  There's nothing wrong with the flexibility built in to move tee locations around so as not to over- or underwhelm the player.  If anything, its courses that stick to scorecard yardages on a 365 basis that probably do the most harm.


Sven

+1-Are the great parkland holes in New England going to get marked down in April because of the climate and it’s effect on the turf?

[Kyle Harris]

Can a great golf hole be merely a good one for half the year, and maybe even less than that a quarter of the time?

If you answer, 'no, a great golf hole is always great' might you be focusing too much on the architecture and not enough on the actual playing?

I actually believe this was the PREMISE of golf architecture prior to the era where conditions in shoulder/off-seasons could be maintained consistently.

The course would be soggy in the Spring and therefore playing longer, particularly in the Northeast.

P.S. One of my bellwethers of great golf course architecture is how diverse and interesting the golf course plays when every hole location is dead center. Bonus points if some of those hole locations are unreasonable/overly sporting.

[Thomas Dai]

Pondering the original question - “Can a great golf hole be merely a good one for half the year, and maybe even less than that a quarter of the time? ” - and wondering if a hole be a great hole or even merely a good hole if it requires all sorts of inputs and manicured maintenance to ensure its playability over a period of time whatever that period may be?

Atb

[Sven Nilsen]

Pondering the original question - “Can a great golf hole be merely a good one for half the year, and maybe even less than that a quarter of the time? ” - and wondering if a hole be a great hole or even merely a good hole if it requires all sorts of inputs and manicured maintenance to ensure its playability over a period of time whatever that period may be?

Atb

Guess the course.  Here's their spring maintenance practices:


Wetting Agent Program
Fertilizer Application
Seaweed Application
Sand Top-Dressing
Surface Grooming
Verti-cutting
Brushing
Rolling
Lowering mowing heights
Increasing mowing frequency
Closing the course one day week

[Kyle Harris]

Pondering the original question - “Can a great golf hole be merely a good one for half the year, and maybe even less than that a quarter of the time? ” - and wondering if a hole be a great hole or even merely a good hole if it requires all sorts of inputs and manicured maintenance to ensure its playability over a period of time whatever that period may be?

Atb

Guess the course.  Here's their spring maintenance practices:


Wetting Agent Program
Fertilizer Application
Seaweed Application
Sand Top-Dressing
Surface Grooming
Verti-cutting
Brushing
Rolling
Lowering mowing heights
Increasing mowing frequency
Closing the course one day week

This is a bit like pondering the efficacy of human existence through the lens of modern medicine. Did we survive 200 years ago without antibiotics and anesthesia? Sure, but...

Some things are learned through the crucible of experience and, ultimately, saving money and headaches.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm imagining a straw-bale constructed house built among trees that, even if off the grid, was designed to keep you warm all winter and cool all summer, and dry and cozy throughout the entire year -- and that manages to accomplish its goal.

And then I imagine an architect, knowing full well that during the playing season it would be wet and cold part of the time and dry and warm the rest of the time, designing a golf hole and golf course that fulfilled its primary function (as a field of play) and served its clientele as well, and as consistently and continually well, as that straw-bale constructed home does -- spring, summer and fall.

Is that too much to ask of the golf course architect?

[Sven Nilsen]

The first time I played Lawsonia, the turf was infested with grubs and played extremely soft (I'm pretty sure this was in the late summer).  The grubs were a bit of a nuisance, but the soft conditions were a detriment to my enjoyment.  I could see how the ball should bounce and run, how various features could be used to move the ball across the land, but that day it wasn't happening. 


I didn't walk away thinking any less of the "greatness" of the course, and on repeated plays, those features worked as I imagined they would. 


Perhaps I was able to separate the "how it is" from "how it could be."  Perhaps this is due to an understanding that the overriding force at play in the game of golf is nature.  The design and maintenance of a course strive to present some sort of ideal, one that is bound by the limits mother nature presents on any given day, in any given month or during any given season.


It is the study of that ideal that we pursue here.  Anyone who doesn't understand that the "playing" isn't always going to match the intent of the architecture, or the ideal, has forgotten that golf courses aren't static.


There's a reason its easier to get access to many top American courses in November than it is in September.  No one wants to miss those days they know the conditions are perfect on their favorite course.


Sven