[Tom_Doak]

Jim Hoak* mentioned in the Doonbeg thread his dislike for crossover holes.  So as not to hijack that thread, I'll start one here.


I am a big fan of crossovers, and have started to incorporate them into my designs, where clients will let me.


Certainly, there are "negatives" associated with them:  safety issues and confusion are are the main complaints.


But let me counter that with some positives:


1.  Efficient use of acreage
2.  Efficient use of resources [less irrigation and fairway mowing if you get double duty from a piece]
3.  Ability to play both holes from the best angle, instead of sacrificing the best line for one tee shot or another approach


A few of my favorite courses in the world have crossovers:  The Old Course, Royal Worlington & Newmarket, Lahinch, and Tara Iti.  Additionally, some of my favorite places in obscure corners of the world have mind-boggling crossovers that work perfectly, such as Himalayan Golf Club and Royal Colombo in Sri Lanka.


In the back of The Confidential Guide I used to list examples of the crossovers I'd seen, but I don't remember if I've kept it up, because I've seen a lot of them now.  So feel free to cite examples you like or examples you don't like.  I'll chime back in after I get caught up on some sleep.


* I had to correct spell check here.

[Sean_A]

I am always going to cite O.L and L.O.

Played one the other day. At St David's City the 7th crosses 6, 3 & 1. 4 & 5 also cross.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Theres a lovely little loop at Woodbridge. 14(IIRC) is a great downhill 4. Turn 90degres roght fo r a great Par 3 in a bowl. Walk to the top of the hill and play the 16th tee shot high across the 14th.
All Braid I believe.

[Sean_A]

Delete.

[Matt_Cohn]

Here in the bay area, Claremont Country Club has two separate crossovers, which must be reasonably rare. I played the course on a very quiet day, so I don’t know if it presents any issues on busier days.

[Ira Fishman]

I don’t know how to copy the thread, but, Tom, you started a long thread on this topic last November. There are several good examples referenced in it.


Other than the safety issue, I think crossovers can and do work well.


Ira

[Matt Schoolfield]

My biggest concern is that crossover holes and beginners don't mix well. I've been hit a surprising four times while playing golf, and I've very nearly hit a few people because I misjudged where they were walking because of awkward routing.

With any traffic on the course:

1. Safety: All player need to know that they are even on a crossover hole. I'm terrified that many might/would be concerned about visible warnings, and would eschew them in favor of something more pleasant on the eyes.

2. Safety & maintance: Sight lines need to always be clear and always be checked.

3. Pace: All players need to know that the group further along has the right-of-way. Any crossover hole that favors players behind playing before players ahead will create a bunch of traffic.

4. Routing: Due to these conditions, the way I see it, all crossover holes should have at least one position playing off a fixed tee.

Any beginners may be unaware of many of the conditions here. Many golfers frustrated on a slow day might decide they can get their shots off before encroaching players reach their balls. There are plenty of reasons why players may send a full shot into an area where people are crossing simply due to ignorance or anti-social behavior.

Thus, while I can see some approaches that can alleviate these concerns, without active monitoring or semi-restricted access, I still think it would be put people in harms way.

[Andy Shulman]

Four times. Yikes!

Would proper signage address these concerns or would some golfers miss the warnings, no matter how prominent?

While I've liked the few crossover holes I've played - topped by #s 5 and 8 on the Eden course - what many of us laud as fun quirk on an overseas golf trip can quickly turn into criticism when we get back home.

With respect to the safety issue, I'll admit it's sometimes pretty easy to not realize you're playing a crossover hole, like on #7 at the Old Course...at least until your caddie saves your life. So, maybe the best option is what I'll call a semi-crossover, like #s 17 and 18 at Lewisburg Elks, a little known course about 15 minutes down the road from The Greenbrier. The tee shot on #18 is right over the 17th green, thus allowing both holes to be slightly longer than they otherwise be in a corner of the property on a 5,600-yard course. That "efficient use of acreage" also presents minimal danger as long as you tee off just after putting out on #17.

[David Harshbarger]

My beloved Battenkill sends you off 16 up the hill into which the 15th green is banked and back over the 15 green.


15 is a short par 4 into another 2500 sq Ft green. The creek lazily crossing diagonally left to right into the dogleg of the hole bunches layups to 110-150. Not only is the green banked into the hill it sits at about a 30 degree angle to the approach presenting a wee nob from the built out green pad on which to land should the greens run firm as they often do. Because of the hill you can have some really touchy lies when you’ve missed the green, and frustrating double bogeys are as common as birdies.


The 16th tee occupies the limited space, 15 ft wide, before the property line abutting a recently retired rail spur. From this perch the 16th stretches out 420 yards with a slight dogleg right depending on tee placement. The tee is 15 to 20 feet above the fairway which extends past the 15th green, 7th tees, a small pond and a creek, and well shaded rough from trees that will swat down errant drives.


And also from this perch you can relive the carnage that beset your card - right there - staring in your face. The well played layup to 130. The well struck iron from the downhill hanging lie the lumpy fairway gave you that came in a little hot and bounded up the embankment immediately behind the green, 8 yards from the hole. Then came the severe downhill chip to the runaway green that trundled off the green, the chip back off the collar that died 8’ out, the sharp pull around the hole that punishes every line/pace mismatch, and the double, 4 shots within 10 yards, that ended your match.  It’s all right there. The group behind drops darts at your feet as you prepare to really nail one making the turn for home.


So count me in the pro crossover camp.

[Ben Stephens]

Brancaster - enough said 

[Ben Stephens]

Flempton has a few and they don't feel like crossover holes - its a small parcel of land.

[Ken Moum]

I'm not sure it's a good one, but Cullen GC's ninth crosses BOTH the eighth and tenth fairways, and that's not even the most dangerous place on the course, IMHO.


That honor has to go to the crossover by the 18th tee.


https://www.cullenlinksgolf.co.uk/Page/Custom?pageId=17698

FWIW, I like the course, but it might have been better if they never expanded it to 18 holes.

[Thomas Dai]

I have a vision of 4 buggies complete with loud music and beer drinking occupants hurtling towards each other on a crossover fairway.
 
In more seriousness given the distance modern day golf balls can travel when hit by relatively unskilled players and the directions they can travel in, the lack of etiquette/politeness/behaviour often shown on courses these days, the desire of some to resort to legal action, insurance premiums and claims and all the related stuff it becomes more and more difficult to be a supporter of crossover holes even though some yee olde courses still have them. Rather sad but thats the way golf and society seems to have evolved.
atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sorry Tom, you’ve lost me on this one finally. First time I can remember a topic where I fundamentally disagree with you.


I get the positives. I like many examples. I also think that standard safety arguments are overplayed, especially when it comes to sales pitches for renovating golf courses. But safety does have to come first. And most crossovers are not the safest places on golf courses. And many crossovers slow down play (that has to come second).


Sure, routing is always a balance, set of compromises and choosing the solution with more positives than negatives. But to actually search out crossing holes seems a step too far.


Folks like them primarily because they represent some cool feature from a bygone era, another touch point of GCA like templates that represent knowledge or “quirk”. And all quirk must be good, right?


Anyway, a few examples. Good holes that I enjoy for the most part:


- Lahinch 4 & 18
- Eden 5 & 8
- Carlow 15 & 16

[Sean_A]

The Lahinch example isn't a good one. It takes a marshall to keep it safe.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

The Lahinch example isn't a good one. It takes a marshall to keep it safe.

Ciao

That is my point.


(Of course, there are different levels of safety hazards with crossing holes. That one is bad because you are in the line of fire of a 200 yard long blind shot. Crossovers where the cross is at a landing zone are particularly bad for safety. Par-3’s and ones where there is only a back tee or two can sometimes just be pace of play more than safety. But there is always an element of safety caused by confusion and forgetfulness).

[Tom_Doak]

 to actually search out crossing holes seems a step too far.

Maybe I was a bit too strong in my statement about "searching them out".  It's more accurate to say I am just more open to crossovers in doing my routings, and it's interesting how often a good possibility comes up once you are open to it.


At Cabot Highlands we will be using the old driving range for Castle Stuart for the new 1st and 18th holes.  It's pretty tight for two holes.  Because of the 2nd and 17th, we have the holes aligned with the left sides clashing and more freedom to the right [like St Andrews], and both holes are shortish par-4's because they are fit into the driving range.


Shortish par-4's are better for crossovers, IMO, because the landing areas are further apart longitudinally -- if the player on the other hole is up near the green, he's probably safely out of your way to hit off.


If we'd just kept the two holes normally, I might have turned down the job, because the two holes would look like a very weak rip-off of The Old Course.  But I kept being drawn to the crossover, because the diagonal line across the range for the 18th hole plays right toward the old clubhouse . . . and if you raise the tee on the first hole, there is also a nice view down the firth toward Inverness in that direction.


Plus, it's the first hole, so we will have a starter helping to direct traffic.  I think all we have to do is post a sign on the 18th tee advising players to wait until the next group is on the green to hit away


P.S.  This is probably why I made the post last fall, because we had just sorted through this idea as part of the routing.  I wasn't sure the client was going to let us do it at that point, but we've got the green light now.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Without knowing the project, that all makes perfect sense to me, Tom.


As we’ve said before, all routing is about weighing up positives against negatives. What makes one architect a different router to another - aside from the skill of finding natural holes or putting the jigsaw together - is the order of their preferences in their compromises.


I think crossovers should be considered if for the greater good. But they’re also pretty high up on my negatives to avoid.

[MCirba]

The back tee on 5 at Sand Hills drives directly across the previous 4th green.


The par five 5th and the par four 9th at Twaalfskill Club in Kingston, NY share a fairway coming from opposite directions.


The second example is due to economical and efficient use of limited acreage.  The first example just the best available angle from the tee.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I understand the appeal of crossovers to architects.....it is a quirk feature that is rarely duplicated elsewhere and can help to make your course stand out.  I sought out potential crossovers, and finally found the perfect opportunity at Superior National in Minnesota.


The par 3 second plays over rushing rapids (imagine a course with views of Lake Superior, and those aren't even the prettiest holes).  The third involved a cart ride back over the river, but there was room to put the back two tees next to no. 2 green, and have those players tee off over the river.  Since the cross over is water, there is no chance of players being in danger.


Von Hagge did that at a course in DFW, with parallel par 3 holes over a pond, but he switched the greens so the cross over is over a pond, again eliminating the safety issue. 


In this day and age, I consider the pace of play issues that these create of equal importance on any reasonably well played course.  Oddly, I had this discussion just yesterday, just talking about combined tees, which also look kind of neat.  However, when you realized one group or the other has to wait to play, you quickly have the follow up realization that a bit of separation works better for the course, and if form follows function, crossing holes and combined tees or greens really aren't so "cool looking features" as to warrant inclusion.  Again, on low play private clubs, I think you would have more latitude, but really, just because some old courses have them, and we are searching for "cool features" these wouldn't be top of mind for most architects, for good reason.

[Ben Stephens]

 to actually search out crossing holes seems a step too far.

Maybe I was a bit too strong in my statement about "searching them out".  It's more accurate to say I am just more open to crossovers in doing my routings, and it's interesting how often a good possibility comes up once you are open to it.


At Cabot Highlands we will be using the old driving range for Castle Stuart for the new 1st and 18th holes.  It's pretty tight for two holes.  Because of the 2nd and 17th, we have the holes aligned with the left sides clashing and more freedom to the right [like St Andrews], and both holes are shortish par-4's because they are fit into the driving range.


Shortish par-4's are better for crossovers, IMO, because the landing areas are further apart longitudinally -- if the player on the other hole is up near the green, he's probably safely out of your way to hit off.


If we'd just kept the two holes normally, I might have turned down the job, because the two holes would look like a very weak rip-off of The Old Course.  But I kept being drawn to the crossover, because the diagonal line across the range for the 18th hole plays right toward the old clubhouse . . . and if you raise the tee on the first hole, there is also a nice view down the firth toward Inverness in that direction.


Plus, it's the first hole, so we will have a starter helping to direct traffic.  I think all we have to do is post a sign on the 18th tee advising players to wait until the next group is on the green to hit away


P.S.  This is probably why I made the post last fall, because we had just sorted through this idea as part of the routing.  I wasn't sure the client was going to let us do it at that point, but we've got the green light now.

Having read your comment - I think this is more similar to the 1st and 18th at Brancaster rather than the Old Course which is much wider. It shares the same fairway with sand dunes on one side and marsh on the other however it doesn't feel like it is dangerous as its all in front of you and it takes common sense as well when to hit your shot.

Brancaster 18th green is more central than the 18th at St Andrews and the 1st of the yellow cross over the line of play of the 18th hole  however the white tee is on the opposite side which is parallel which is more tucked in with the dunes.

The other one that come to mind is the 1st and 18th at Sandilands in North Lincs which is NLE - both short medium par 4s but crossed over like a X chromosome shape and it had a raised ridge in the middle so that fairways were separated rather than all in one which was more of a guidance for the player and it is of similar width at CH and RWN - again this felt like Brancaster and as far as I can remember it was a reasonably busy course.

[DFarron]

Sequoyah in Oakland has a crossover hole (#15&16), have played there several times and there has never been an issue nor has there been one at Claremont.


I guess my train of thought is how come these holes are “safety” issues but they weren’t when they were built?


Ball going too far??? Maybe

[David Kelly]

Having read your comment - I think this is more similar to the 1st and 18th at Brancaster rather than the Old Course which is much wider. It shares the same fairway with sand dunes on one side and marsh on the other however it doesn't feel like it is dangerous as its all in front of you and it takes common sense as well when to hit your shot.

There will always be some element of danger in this situation. My second play at Royal West Norfolk almost came to an end on the first hole when a golfer coming up 18 shanked a ball that whizzed past my nose, missing it by a quarter inch. 

[Tom_Doak]

There will always be some element of danger in this situation. My second play at Royal West Norfolk almost came to an end on the first hole when a golfer coming up 18 shanked a ball that whizzed past my nose, missing it by a quarter inch.

Now that you mention it, I guess there is some amount of survivor's bias in everyone thinking crossovers are safe!

[Kyle Harris]

How many are the result of original design or thought and how many are the result of subsequent lengthening with no other options?


The hole that got me thinking of this is the 9th/10th at Merion West. No crossover, but the only way to lengthen 10 would be to have one somewhat.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()