Is the lack of iconic holes in modern golf architecture a concern?

[Mike Bodo]

Given the increase of courses built in the modern age appearing in Top 100 course ratings, it caused me to ponder the long-term prospects of interest, excitement and desireability for these courses given the seeming lack of iconic or signature holes to bring people back.


Let's face it, people are willing to shell out $800.00 a round at TPC Sawgrass just for the opportunity to take on the17th. Pebble has several iconic holes that conitinue to bring patrons back. St. Andrews has the famous "road hole". Troon, the Postage Stamp hole. Many golden age courses that still populate the Top 100 feature one, if not several legendary holes. Heck, Pine Valley arguably has 18 of the most memorable holes in golf.


However, with courses built in the modern age there doesn't seem to be the one or two riveting "must see and play" holes that would compell golfers of all stripes to want to check it out at least once in their lives. Am I missing something? I mean, I rarely hear people on this forum call out specific holes on any modern age course as "you gotta see it, to believe it." Most refer to the courses at Sand Valley, Bandon Dunes, Streamsong, Prarie Dunes, etc. as being great due to the sum of their parts, but rarely does anyone talk ad nauseum of the truly standout holes that define those properties. This runs contrary to many golden age courses that came before them.


Is this a potential problem long-term for these properties and their standing in the golf lexicon or are many of these courses still too new where there's yet to be a consensus in the golf architecture world on what standout, signature holes there are?


I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts on the subject, because with the plethora of new courses set to come online the next several years - many which I'm sure will be highly praised and rated - I question what will it be that brings people back to the current top modern age courses if there's little to nothing that distinguishes and sets them apart from an architectural standpoint to the competition?

[Mark Kiely]

It probably depends on if your definition of "iconic" is seeking eye candy holes or great strategic holes. If you're looking for eye candy, somewhere like Cabot St. Lucia comes to mind as a new course with what seem to be "iconic" holes that would attract "golfers of all stripes." If you're looking for just great strategic holes, I suspect that takes longer to gain consensus because they need to be experienced, not just captured in a photograph.

[Kyle Harris]

I play golf courses. Not golf holes.


Iconic also takes a bit of time, no? How many iconic holes exists because their golf courses were built to maximize course and therefore holes stood out through the crucible of play or historic occurrence.


Name the iconic hole at Augusta. Now explain why.

[Steve Abt]

I would say 90%+ of what are generally considered iconic holes are because of tv coverage. Pine Valley may be the exception but it’s the perennial #1 course in the world and even still, most golfers outside of places such as this would be hard pressed to describe a single hole.

[Mike Bodo]

Name the iconic hole at Augusta. Now explain why.

12, 13, 15 and 16 at ANGC I'd argue are memorable and iconic. You can throw the 11th in there as well to complete Amen Corner These holes are often featured and talked about for their strategy, beauty and history. There are several holes at Riviera I'd put in this class. Same goes for Cypress Point.

[Mike Bodo]

I would say 90%+ of what are generally considered iconic holes are because of tv coverage. Pine Valley may be the exception but it’s the perennial #1 course in the world and even still, most golfers outside of places such as this would be hard pressed to describe a single hole.

To play devils advocate, my wife was kind enough to buy me the book "The 500 World's Greatest Golf Holes" as selected and compiled by Golf Magazine. It's amazing how few holes from modern age courses are included in this list. Again, I'm not sure if this because it takes time for the architecture community to form a consensus of what makes a great golf hole on newer courses or because there simply aren't many.


That said, I recall when the PGAT first held The Players at TPC Sawgrass both the 17th and 18th holes being pretty big deals. It didn't take an extended period of time to determine they were oustanding holes from both a design and strategic standpiont. There was pretty much consensus out of the gate.

[Ira Fishman]

Mike,


I think that book was published in 2020. There are a lot of great holes that would make the list that have been built since then.


Kyle is spot on that the transition from great to iconic takes time.


Ira

[Mike Bodo]

Mike,


I think that book was published in 2020. There are a lot of great holes that would make the list that have been built since then.


Kyle is spot on that the transition from great to iconic takes time.


Ira

Thanks, Ira! I don't disagree and was primarily posing the question to those I knew would provide good feedback on both sides of the debate. To counter my own initial remarks, there are a number of great golden age courses that don't have what I consider a signature hole. Pinehurst #2 being one. There are a lot of strong, excellent holes, but nothing particularly groundbreaking.

[Adam Uttley]

Many of those holes have become iconic due to exposure for how they look or what has happened on them, rather than having an inherent quality about them that is missing from modern holes.  A lot of that is TV but equally it can be print journalism or just good old storytelling.


I think there are many examples of holes on modern courses that are, or will become, iconic holes.  A few examples from the top of my head:


Barnbougle Dunes 7th
Cape Wickham 18th
Brandon Dunes 15th
Tara Iti 17th
Kingsbarns 12th / 15th


And this is just from the few I’ve played.

[Ira Fishman]

Mike,


I think that book was published in 2020. There are a lot of great holes that would make the list that have been built since then.


Kyle is spot on that the transition from great to iconic takes time.


Ira

Thanks, Ira! I don't disagree and was primarily posing the question to those I knew would provide good feedback on both sides of the debate. To counter my own initial remarks, there are a number of great golden age courses that don't have what I consider a signature hole. Pinehurst #2 being one. There are a lot of strong, excellent holes, but nothing particularly groundbreaking.

Mike,


I was thinking about Ross when Kyle said he plays courses, not holes. I agree with him. I am hard pressed to think of an iconic Ross hole among all of the terrific courses he designed. Maybe 16 at Oakland Hills or the Volcano hole as an iconic template.


Ira

[Steve Abt]

I think time offers (at least) two specific advantages:


1) The older courses have become part of a common language that everyone knows because we’ve had decades to learn about them. It’s definitionally easier to be “iconic” when more people know about it in the first place.


2) It’s much easier to create something novel when creating it first (duh). Iconic holes are often the first or first prominent example of an archetype or even template. I’ve played two Dye island holes that were awfully similar to 17 Sawgrass, but neither approaches iconic status because they were neither first nor best known. A hole basically needs to have at least some unique or new element to be iconic, and it’s simply much harder to do something new or unique when you’re building on 100+ years of work.

[Mike_Clayton]

Many of those holes have become iconic due to exposure for how they look or what has happened on them, rather than having an inherent quality about them that is missing from modern holes.  A lot of that is TV but equally it can be print journalism or just good old storytelling.


I think there are many examples of holes on modern courses that are, or will become, iconic holes.  A few examples from the top of my head:


Barnbougle Dunes 7th
Cape Wickham 18th
Brandon Dunes 15th
Tara Iti 17th
Kingsbarns 12th / 15th


And this is just from the few I’ve played.

I'd include Barnbougle 4 as well.

[Thomas Dai]

Barnbougle Dunes 7th

The exact same hole that came immediately to my mind when I opened this thread.


Atb

[Mark_Fine]

I never like the idea of signature holes. I’ve done quite a few renovations and if someone comes up to me says, “it looks like this one is going to be our signature hole it almost tells me that I failed or haven’t done as well with the other ones. Of course there’s always going to be a few holes that could stand out or be favorites maybe because they are so dramatic or well televised or something special occurred on them like #11 at Merion, but take a look at what Tom Doak’s definition for a 10 is!  That is the best definition of what is true greatness.

[Tom_Doak]

Iconic generally DOES take time.  Also, a lot of the holes you're talking about are on one of the top 50 courses in the world -- there are only a handful of modern courses ranked that high.  And some of them are very much out of the spotlight -- consider how few people could talk about the holes at Sand Hills or Tara Iti?


Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes have their iconic holes, because a lot of people have played them.  And Barnbougle is very well played by the Australians.

[Sean_A]

It takes time, often famous writers expounding the greatness of holes and/or famous moments (sometimes televised) to be part of the hole lore to be iconic. Very few if any modern holes are going to get this full treatment. I don’t think Joe blow golfers playing holes and thinking they are wonderful makes them iconic.

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

16 at Bandon Dunes is as iconic a hole as you will find. I'd put it up against any of the ones that you mentioned. When you first see it from the tee, your knees weaken.

I'm in the camp that plays the forest, not individual trees.

If you play a Mike Strantz course other than Stonehouse, and don't come away with two iconic holes, I got nothing else to say.

Actually, I do. I respectfully disagree with the notion that there is a dearth of iconic holes in MGCA.

[Mike Bodo]

2) It’s much easier to create something novel when creating it first (duh). Iconic holes are often the first or first prominent example of an archetype or even template. I’ve played two Dye island holes that were awfully similar to 17 Sawgrass, but neither approaches iconic status because they were neither first nor best known. A hole basically needs to have at least some unique or new element to be iconic, and it’s simply much harder to do something new or unique when you’re building on 100+ years of work.

Excellent points, but then it begs the question; is it near impossible to create new iconic holes because it's bascially all been done by now? If so, that's sad, because it tells me there isn't much to look forward to in terms of game-changing new design concepts and trends and that we're basically stuck where we are. I blame this on developers, more than anything, as too many choose to play things safe in order for their project or course to be successful, handcuffing architects on what otherwise could be possible.


The last time an architect was given the lattitude to think outside the box and do something truly unique and dynamic was our own Tom Doak with The Loop, Sedge Valley and the Lido. Granted, the latter was based on reproducing a course that NLE, but no one had done this prior that I'm aware of and to the degree of success TD did.


I'm hoping the next generation of archies is given the freedom to push the boundaries of what's possible in term of golf course and hole design, because I feel as though we're kind of stuck in this cycle of wash, rinse, repeat.

[Mark_Fine]

If you have been on this site long enough there are lots of innovative ideas (radical ideas),… etc that have been discussed for golf course design.  Making them happen is the real challenge.  Remember the old saying, Ideas are easy, Implementation is a bitch.  Change is hard in what has been a game of tradition for a long time.  Some architects like Desmond Muirhead tried to do very different/radical things but most were cited as gimmicks or too extreme.


One novel design idea that was discussed here many years ago was a hole that was say 180 yards long but the way it primarily had to be played due to hazard locations and green slopes was a first shot past the green and then a short iron back to the putting surface.  It was viewed as gimmicky and also certain to hold up play as it was in reality a par four and players on the tee couldn’t tee off till the green cleared.  I am sure many here are picturing this kind of hole and shaking their heads but that would be one example of a novel hole concept.  Again it is hard to accept and implement anything too radical which is why change is mostly subtle.  Architects can dress up the body differently but the body is the body though it’s size and curves will vary. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

I think no.

Aside from site specific icons (like CP), for there to be iconic holes, I think there needs to be a limited canon.

The internet killed the rockstar and at the same time, launched a thousand sub genres by connecting an audience to their niche.

I think the same has happened with golf, but obviously more slowly. I think of the Northwood profile this week in Club TFE. A decade ago, I knew few folks who knew about it, now it seems like it’s a destination, simply because it’s worth posting about on Reddit or a YouTube channel. 

Iconic holes, I think, kind of need to consensus of a community, and as golf gets more niche, I think that becomes harder, even as the courses get better for their respective audiences.

This should translate to more holes that appeal to a specific demo, and fewer holes trying to please more people, which makes it harder to make one hole stand out.

It’s a theory anyway.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think no.

Aside from site specific icons (like CP), for there to be iconic holes, I think there needs to be a limited canon.

The internet killed the rockstar and at the same time, launched a thousand sub genres by connecting an audience to their niche.

I think the same has happened with golf, but obviously more slowly. I think of the Northwood profile this week in Club TFE. A decade ago, I knew few folks who knew about it, now it seems like it’s a destination, simply because it’s worth posting about on Reddit or a YouTube channel. 

Iconic holes, I think, kind of need to consensus of a community, and as golf gets more niche, I think that becomes harder, even as the courses get better for their respective audiences.

This should translate to more holes that appeal to a specific demo, and fewer holes trying to please more people, which makes it harder to make one hole stand out.

It’s a theory anyway.

It’s a good theory. I like it. In tandem with the argument that iconic holes need time and column inches.

[Thomas Dai]

Has playing a hole over a ramp been done before the hole at the Kids Course at Old Barnwell? #
Iconic? Template? Inspired-by?

Atb


# excluding at Putt-putt/Crazy Golf venues.

[Adam Lawrence]

I’m sorry, but I think this is a ridiculous question. How can something new possibly be an icon?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’m sorry, but I think this is a ridiculous question. How can something new possibly be an icon?

Happy New Year, Adam!


The 2nd Golden Age / Renaissance is 30 years old now and has had plenty time to influence and provide touch points of significance.


That it most certainly has done but I would argue in an overall style / philosophy rather than in individual holes.


In time, the global golf journalism glitterati may hone in and agree on certain holes but I think Matt definitely has a point in post 19 (the internet DID kill the rockstar!) and I think the original question is a valid one.

[Mark Pearce]

I’m sorry, but I think this is a ridiculous question. How can something new possibly be an icon?

Thank you.