[Ben Sims]

If you’ve only got one chance to build a great hole on a particular project, you should probably go for it. -Tom Doak


The thread about learning from great golf courses took a short detour when various posters opined about thoughts on individual holes and a course being greater than the sum of parts, etc. I thought it might be worth a separate thread.


Tom wrote to Ally using the quote to start this post. It made me wonder if there were any truly great golf holes on courses we would consider below average courses. A Mike Trout on the Angels, if you allow the comparison. Anyone have an example? Seems most of the holes we collectively study as enthusiasts exist on courses commonly found on good to great courses. Also, can one great hole make a course?

[Matt_Cohn]

I can think of many holes on nondescript courses that you could put into Winged Foot or Pebble and suddenly people would "find" greatness in them, somehow. And I think there are plenty of great holes that would be totally overlooked if they weren't at famous courses, because people wouldn't be primed to consider them for greatness in the first place.


Imagine you were totally unaware of the existence of 11 at Shinnecock, but you played a virtual replica of it on a local muni. You probably wouldn't say it was one of the great par 3's in America, simply because your brain just doesn't even consider that would be a possibility at that type of course.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


I thought your post was about the new course Mike Trout is BUILDING.  Your thread title might wind up being confusing, even though I always like a good baseball analogy.


[One flaw with your analogy is that the Angels have had a guy maybe better than Mike Trout for the past few years, even though they still couldn't win anything.]


As to your question, there are lots of golf holes that fit the description.  I saw them all over the UK during my year abroad, because I sought them out . . . everywhere I played, I would ask people if there were other courses in the area I should see, even just for one great hole.  Some of the places I wound up as a result:


the 4th [or 6th or 10th] at St. Enodoc
the 8th at Kilspindie
the 8th at Moortown [although I think it's the 10th now]
the 8th at Brancaster
the 13th at Hunstanton
the 13th at Dooks [RIP]


Now, some caveats.  A couple of these courses are now considered "great", or certainly, at least, better than just the one hole.  How much the one hole has influenced that reputation is worth considering.  I might even argue that a course like Royal Troon would be considered just another links course were it not for the 8th hole -- not that I would say there aren't any other really good holes, I just don't think they would get much scrutiny were it not for the 8th.


The reason there aren't more such holes is that, generally, a great hole has to have good bunkering or a good green complex, and if the builder was capable of that, the rest of the course ought to have some more of it.  But on links terrain, great bunkering and great greens are less important [or a great green might be found just laying there], so I think you are more likely to find a single great hole overseas than here in the USA where golf holes usually require more construction.


But I've seen plenty of courses in the USA where there was only one hole that sticks in my memory; it's just not as easy to sort through that list in my head, because I didn't go and see them in such a logical order that it's easy to remember them all.

[Tom_Doak]

There is another part to this discussion to which I can easily extend your baseball analogy, and that is when should a golf course architect "swing for the fences" ?


Someone made a point in the other thread [supportive of my post] that wasn't it the architect's main job to try and build great holes?  Yes, but just like great hitters don't usually swing for the fences, great architects don't usually try to build the coolest green ever or the wildest bunker ever, on every hole they build.  [That's why some of these young guys are not yet great architects.]


So how do your decide when to go for it?  You can't do it 18 times; you've got to find some balance in the overall experience, so you've got to choose your spots.  Choosing the right spot is a huge part of design.


You are most familiar with Ballyneal, and that's a great example.  A lot of people think all of the greens are wild and crazy, but there's a lot of variance there, because a handful of them truly are.  For me the three wildest ones are the 6th, the 12th, and the 17th.  17 was almost entirely natural, with some minimal softening; 6 and 12 are entirely created. 


I personally think the 12th is one of the best holes we've ever built.  Eric Iverson did some work in the landing area of the fairway to give you a reasonable chance of staying up high if you play close to the bunkers; Brian Schneider built the green from scratch without any direction from me, as far as I can remember.


If we were working for Michael Keiser there [or for several of my other current clients], he would have insisted that the hole was great because of the fairway contours, and that we shouldn't risk ruining it with a wild green.  Luckily, on that one, we had no input from the client at all and I didn't have to neuter Brian's work.


There are lots of people who would agree with me there but then say the 6th is a place we went too far, because it's a much longer two-shot hole, and that wasn't the right place for such a severe green [that one is Kye Goalby's creation, with some input from me].  Technically, I might agree . . . but it's such an original green that I gave it the green light even if I knew it wouldn't be so well admired. The hole was going to be fairly dull otherwise, and I didn't want that.

[Sean_A]

Ben:

I thought your post was about the new course Mike Trout is BUILDING.  Your thread title might wind up being confusing, even though I always like a good baseball analogy.

[One flaw with your analogy is that the Angels have had a guy maybe better than Mike Trout for the past few years, even though they still couldn't win anything.]

As to your question, there are lots of golf holes that fit the description.  I saw them all over the UK during my year abroad, because I sought them out . . . everywhere I played, I would ask people if there were other courses in the area I should see, even just for one great hole.  Some of the places I wound up as a result:

the 4th [or 6th or 10th] at St. Enodoc
the 8th at Kilspindie
the 8th at Moortown [although I think it's the 10th now]
the 8th at Brancaster
the 13th at Hunstanton
the 13th at Dooks [RIP]

Now, some caveats.  A couple of these courses are now considered "great", or certainly, at least, better than just the one hole.  How much the one hole has influenced that reputation is worth considering.  I might even argue that a course like Royal Troon would be considered just another links course were it not for the 8th hole -- not that I would say there aren't any other really good holes, I just don't think they would get much scrutiny were it not for the 8th.

The reason there aren't more such holes is that, generally, a great hole has to have good bunkering or a good green complex, and if the builder was capable of that, the rest of the course ought to have some more of it.  But on links terrain, great bunkering and great greens are less important [or a great green might be found just laying there], so I think you are more likely to find a single great hole overseas than here in the USA where golf holes usually require more construction.

But I've seen plenty of courses in the USA where there was only one hole that sticks in my memory; it's just not as easy to sort through that list in my head, because I didn't go and see them in such a logical order that it's easy to remember them all.

Kilspindie is the closest to being average of the courses you cite. Even then it’s not really the case. Kilspindie has other very cool holes. I think the 4th is better than the 8th!

St David’s City is the best example I can think of….although I am hesitant to suggest any links is an average course due to their scarcity. Without the great 4th the course is probably about average, but in a beautiful location.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

A very memorable hole is the 18th at former Trilogy GC, now Glen Ivy GC in Corona, California. The tee is like 250 feet above the fairway on this 434 yard par 4. The green hugs the pond you have ot carry if you come in from the left. Green is easy, but a lot of fun trying to watch your ball dropping that far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8O97_JmdjA
Another is the par 5, 9th at Big Run GC in Lockport, Illinois. Opened in 1930 and designed by C.H. Muelenford and Sneed, this hole has long been known by Chicagoland golfers as one of the toughest par 5's in the area. Long 610 from the back, it plays almost as a double dogleg for it has huge oak trees you have to navigate with an hills sloping and the green perched. It has constantly been rumored this course was going to be sold to developers as it is owned by a family. Very hilly, can be a tough walk in the summer heat.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Royal Tarlair 13th is the poster child.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There is another part to this discussion to which I can easily extend your baseball analogy, and that is when should a golf course architect "swing for the fences" ?


Someone made a point in the other thread [supportive of my post] that wasn't it the architect's main job to try and build great holes?  Yes, but just like great hitters don't usually swing for the fences, great architects don't usually try to build the coolest green ever or the wildest bunker ever, on every hole they build.  [That's why some of these young guys are not yet great architects.]


So how do your decide when to go for it?  You can't do it 18 times; you've got to find some balance in the overall experience, so you've got to choose your spots.  Choosing the right spot is a huge part of design.


You are most familiar with Ballyneal, and that's a great example.  A lot of people think all of the greens are wild and crazy, but there's a lot of variance there, because a handful of them truly are.  For me the three wildest ones are the 6th, the 12th, and the 17th.  17 was almost entirely natural, with some minimal softening; 6 and 12 are entirely created. 


I personally think the 12th is one of the best holes we've ever built.  Eric Iverson did some work in the landing area of the fairway to give you a reasonable chance of staying up high if you play close to the bunkers; Brian Schneider built the green from scratch without any direction from me, as far as I can remember.


If we were working for Michael Keiser there [or for several of my other current clients], he would have insisted that the hole was great because of the fairway contours, and that we shouldn't risk ruining it with a wild green.  Luckily, on that one, we had no input from the client at all and I didn't have to neuter Brian's work.


There are lots of people who would agree with me there but then say the 6th is a place we went too far, because it's a much longer two-shot hole, and that wasn't the right place for such a severe green [that one is Kye Goalby's creation, with some input from me].  Technically, I might agree . . . but it's such an original green that I gave it the green light even if I knew it wouldn't be so well admired. The hole was going to be fairly dull otherwise, and I didn't want that.

This post jives with me far more. I’m not sure how you managed to misread the other thread as I don’t aim to build the best holes possible. My point was merely that I put high priority on the best 18 over solo, individual moments. I am anti-signature holes….


…however, building the best hole possible sometimes means dialling back and not “swinging for the fences”. If an architect’s first thought is  “more, more, more” rather than “less can be more”, then the resultant golf course usually looks a little too super-charged to suit my tastes. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t times when you go wild, just that it tends to be better if within the context of the 18.

[Tim Martin]

There is another part to this discussion to which I can easily extend your baseball analogy, and that is when should a golf course architect "swing for the fences" ?


Someone made a point in the other thread [supportive of my post] that wasn't it the architect's main job to try and build great holes?  Yes, but just like great hitters don't usually swing for the fences, great architects don't usually try to build the coolest green ever or the wildest bunker ever, on every hole they build.  [That's why some of these young guys are not yet great architects.]


So how do your decide when to go for it?  You can't do it 18 times; you've got to find some balance in the overall experience, so you've got to choose your spots.  Choosing the right spot is a huge part of design.


You are most familiar with Ballyneal, and that's a great example.  A lot of people think all of the greens are wild and crazy, but there's a lot of variance there, because a handful of them truly are.  For me the three wildest ones are the 6th, the 12th, and the 17th.  17 was almost entirely natural, with some minimal softening; 6 and 12 are entirely created. 


I personally think the 12th is one of the best holes we've ever built.  Eric Iverson did some work in the landing area of the fairway to give you a reasonable chance of staying up high if you play close to the bunkers; Brian Schneider built the green from scratch without any direction from me, as far as I can remember.


If we were working for Michael Keiser there [or for several of my other current clients], he would have insisted that the hole was great because of the fairway contours, and that we shouldn't risk ruining it with a wild green.  Luckily, on that one, we had no input from the client at all and I didn't have to neuter Brian's work.


There are lots of people who would agree with me there but then say the 6th is a place we went too far, because it's a much longer two-shot hole, and that wasn't the right place for such a severe green [that one is Kye Goalby's creation, with some input from me].  Technically, I might agree . . . but it's such an original green that I gave it the green light even if I knew it wouldn't be so well admired. The hole was going to be fairly dull otherwise, and I didn't want that.

This post jives with me far more. I’m not sure how you managed to misread the other thread as I don’t aim to build the best holes possible. My point was merely that I put high priority on the best 18 over solo, individual moments. I am anti-signature holes….


…however, building the best hole possible sometimes means dialling back and not “swinging for the fences”. If an architect’s first thought is  “more, more, more” rather than “less can be more”, then the resultant golf course usually looks a little too super-charged to suit my tastes. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t times when you go wild, just that it tends to be better if within the context of the 18.

Ally-You made reference to “signature” holes above and it made me think of 16 at Sleepy Hollow and 17 at TPC Sawgrass. Both are instantly recognizable but I don’t know that either is a great hole or even the best one shotter on it’s respective course. I’m a fan of 16 at Sleepy Hollow but without the Hudson and Palisades on the perimeter it’s another version of the short. Desmond Muirhead’s Jaws hole at Stone Harbor was another signature hole that got press because of its audacity rather than it’s greatness.

[Ronald Montesano]

Tim...I'll add that the ditch in front of 16Sleepy enhances it even more. I do consider it a great hole. It is extraordinarily photogenic. I guess that is the virtue of great property. No matter what hole they built there, it would have been great. The genius was in routing the Short template downhill, and the Eden template uphill.

As for the title to the thread, in western New York we have some Doak 3s, 4s, and 5s with some amazing golf holes. I wonder where "meh" would rank on the Doak scale for Ben. If it's a 1 or a 2, gosh, I don't know that we have any of those with Mike Trout (or even Kilgore Trout) holes.

Going to the other end of the state, I consider the Yellow course at Bethpage to be a very good course, and it has some really cool holes. Given the terrain of the entirety of 90 holes (Black, Red, Blue, Green, Yellow) you'd have to really suck at gca to not build a few great holes on each course.

We have a course called Wanakah, which is a William Watson design, revived by Chris Wilczynski. It has a rotten little piece of ground, adjacent to the short game area, where Watson built a gorgeous par-three hole. It's a stunner of a hole. The golf course is very good, probably a Doak 5 or 6, but I'm always stunned at how good this hole is.

That's what I have for the moment. Hope that it adds to the thread.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,


I changed the title but not because of Ohtani (sidebar: doesn’t matter whether it’s him or Trout having generational seasons, Angels haven’t won a playoff game since 2009). It’s because of the course Mike Trout is building and I don’t want an internet search to result in a pejorative thread title. Thanks for that reminder.


I am really glad you brought up restraint. It’s something I immediately thought of in your response to Ally on the other thread. If you truly had the ability to build one great hole on a project, what do you do with the other 17? If you swing for the fences on that one hole, I would expect that you have the land and the chops to make those other holes stand up in comparison. In modern baseball, it seems teams rarely succeed with one superstar and lesser talent elsewhere in the lineup.


And here we get to the crux of my thought process. The reason we don’t talk about courses with one great hole and a bunch of other serviceable holes that often is because that not what makes a great course. That’s what I learned most from great courses. It takes a whole team, right?


In effect, some hitters actually do get the ability to swing for the fences because they’ve got good players around them in the lineup. Ballyneal 6 works in part because of what’s behind it in the lineup.

[Matt Schoolfield]

If there is one course that I think has great holes, but is a very meh course, it's Lincoln Park muni in San Francisco. So, ignore the golf course maintenance for one minute, because I'm just talking about the architecture.

Holes 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 18 are remarkable and interesting holes. I would consider 1 (flirt with OB to gain better access to the green), 3 (hit a draw into wind above trees to attack a green surrounded by danger), and 18 (two options on the approach, so two options off the tee) as great holes. Each of the interesting holes has their own character, and even the "bad" holes on this list (most people would say 7 and 14 are bad holes), I think are interesting because of subtleties that allow players to avoid common problems by teeing off with an iron.

However, holes 12, 13, 16, and 17 are all atrocious in my opinion (aside from the view on the 17th tee). Each of these holes is both boring and unpleasant to play. To add injury to insult, 16 and 17 are effectively the same hole, back-to-back, and are both unreasonably punishing while also being boring.

Stacking all these terrible holes at the end of the course really leaves a bad taste in my mouth as I leave the course and I rarely want to play there, but I could easily write a multi-page analysis on each of the holes listed above (and have in the case of #1).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()