[Ran Morrissett]

This post is prompted by James Clifford's response under the topic disappointing experiences. In it, he talks about the "indifferent" holes at Sunningdale Old.I read an article some 15 years ago written by Peter Dobereiner where he talked about the virtues of a bland or innocent hole, how it could trap the golfer into overswinging, perhaps getting him out of rhythm, or maybe permitting him to stop thinking for a hole, and then when his guard is down, the course and the architect pounce on him.For his example, he used the 13th hole at Turnberry.I cannot help but think the same is true of some of Sunningdale's less than inspiring holes. From personal experience, I can attest to trying to drive the 9th green on the Old Course, failing, ending up with a double, and during that state of unfit mind, proceeding to double the 10th and 12th holes as well and having the entire round blow up in my face.I am not saying the 9th is a fine and noble hole at Sunnindale but I am saying - along with Peter -  that these change of pace holes have more merit than may be readily apparent.Courses that throw one good hard hole after another at you may be missing out on a key - variety.Who agrees and what are some other examples?

[DBE]

seminole gc has two such examples of relatively simple and easy holes that frequently lull the player to sleep.  no. 1 is only 370 yards and with the prevailing tail wind good players use only wedges to reach the large, flat green for their second shots.  the problem is that the large green deceives the player's depth perception and usually results in long approach putts.  the 12th hole, a 360 yarder with a 45 yard wide fairway for tee shots, is to most first timers playing there considered a birdie chance.  good luck on playing the most demanding short iron of the round into the prevailing head wind to a very narrow green.  many a player has walked to the next tee mumbling after making five or even six.  

[John Morrissett]

How about the 9th at St. Andrews (Old)?  The bunkers in the middle of the fairway hold the interest wih the drive, but the approach can find the player, in Peter Kostis - speak, "uncommitted" -- should he pitch it, run it, or play a pitch and run?  The dead flat ground makes the decision difficult as so many options enter the player's mind.  Interesting how there are never as many birdies here during the Open as one might supsect.

[Scott Kraus]

I think the 3rd at Pine Needles is a good example of an innocent hole that might lull the golfer into complacency. The two hardest holes on the course follow right after, so don't let an easy par on the picture postcard 3rd fool you.

[Ran Morrissett]

I will never understand (other than the photographers don't have to walk far) why the 3rd hole at Pine Needles is photographed so much.  A short par three with a big green and a pond well short? Big deal - it is hardly symbolic of the character of the place. Is it the least interesting shot on the front nine? Still, Scott, you are right - it might flatter you to the point where you do dumb things shortly thereafter.

[A_Clay_Man]

Bringing this up for those who want to toughen holes or who insist on thinking tough finishers are always better.

[ian]

Adam, good post to bring back up.

I remember seeing an interview where one of the pros said that he found the easy par fours on courses tougher than the hard ones. He said what became the issue was four was a good score on the tough holes and three was "taking" one from the course. The mindset is good, hit in on and try make a putt.

When he came to short or easier fours he felt like only a three was good enough and that a four was "losing" a stroke where he needed to gain one. The additional pressure to make three meant that he was far more tense on this hole than the rest.
The mindset was, I must hit it close.

The mental side of design is a facinating subject all in itself, because adding "tension" usually unsettles a player. As Pete Dye's great quote goes something like, "Once you get those dudes thinking" If a designer can find ways to unnerve a player, then they can rely less on length and more on technique to battle a players abilities.

Returning to the thread, a very easy hole, after a tough run, is a technique to play with a players mind. The 9th at Sunningdale is so much more benign than the holes proceeding, losing a shot is extra punishing to a player.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ian- Yet so many call for holes to be "improved". Implying they lack some merit. This erroneous default position, when exhibited, should always be questioned and considered on a case by case basis.

Ebb and flow are not two vaudevillians sleeping in the pokonnos, they are integral to great gca.

Holes I would never touch, the 15th at Pebble and the 18th at BPB.

[Top100Guru]

I truly believe #1 at Secession is a "good"....."bad" hole......bad because it is the first hole of the day, good because it much tougher "looking" than it actually plays, unless of course the tide is "full"....and the "wind" is howling!!!

[ian]

Adam,

I agree with #15 being a fine hole exactly the way it is and where it comes in the routing. I think I've come to the conclusion that I will some day have to play Pebble again to see if I misunderstood or didn't get the interior holes.

Is rythem the most misunderstood technique in design. I still am blown away by Merion's flow. Lengthening the "middle" (if you actually could) likely would spoil the way the course unfolds. Additionally. I always wondered if the walk from 13 to 14 tee adds to the new hightened tension of playing that tough finish. You have all that time to think about those holes as you walk to 14 tee.

[gookin]

Great point.  Holes on a golf course tend to fit together in clusters.  Often a soft/weak /bad hole can connect them. Great point at Merion as 13 a seemingly simple wedge par 3 taking you to the brutal finish.  At Oakmont, 14 is a devilish little breather. A kind of quiet before the storm of #15.  #10 at the Upper Cascades beautifully transitions play into the valley. #11 or 12 at Cypress which ever one is the down hill hole that starts the turn back to the ocean.  These holes often make the player feel like they have a chance to catch their breath.  How you preform on these holes can build the base for a good round or bury you before you get started.

[TEPaul]

Here's an example of a 'good bad hole'. PVGC's #12. RTJ labeled this hole the only weak hole at Pine Valley (which has always made me wonder about RTJ's judgment!). This isn't just a good (bad) hole, to me---it's a great (bad) hole--a really generous fairway and a very short hole and one you can make a birdie on easily but also one with just a simple mistake from tee to green you can make an "other" on very easily.

[A_Clay_Man]

TomPaul- Isn't that the type of scoring differential we were talking about, on the DM thread?
It sure sounds like the disparagee I had in my mind.

[TEPaul]

"TomPaul- Isn't that the type of scoring differential we were talking about, on the DM thread?"

Adam:

Sure it is. Initially when I said that maybe a year or so ago I didn't exactly say it in the context of a discussion of what was strategic or what was the exact definition of strategic or options or something like that--all those threads evolved  later. All I said is it seemed to me that some interesting golf holes seem to have wide scoring spectrums. Of course that includes both under and over par to whatever extent. That's when Bob Crosby put together a mathematical formula to see if that idea could be tested to show evidence of which holes have wide scoring spectrums and what it might mean.

[rgkeller]

There is no such thing as a good bad hole.

There are many examples of good easy holes.

[TEPaul]

rgkeller said;

"There is no such thing as a good bad hole.
There are many examples of good easy holes."

rg:

That just shows how subjective golfers can be. There may not be such a thing as a 'good bad hole' but I've sure seen plenty of really good golfers who don't look at holes like PVGC's #12 as a 'good easy hole' after they've made a double bogie or worse ("others") on it despite the fact they may've birdied the hole a number of times in their lives! So in the context of what seems to be the question here maybe it would be a better idea to drop both the 'bad' and the 'easy' and just call them "good holes"!    
 
 

[Sandman]

Number 10 at Shinnecock...........nuf said

[rgkeller]

The best feature of a good easy hole is the mental pressure it places on a golfer to make a low number there amidst the more challenging (and probably more reknown) holes.

Nothing ruins a round more than making a number on an easy hole.

[TEPaul]

So rg, how would you describe the difference between a hole that's potentially easy to birdie but has the architectural capacity to extract an "other" (like PVGC's #12) compared to a golf hole that really doesn't have anything about it architecturally that accomplishes the latter?

[rgkeller]

A good easy hole amply rewards proper execution of simple straightforward shots but makes recovery from either a poor first or a poor second problematic.

A hole that regularly brings "other" into the picture is not an easy hole. It may be good, bad or mediocore - but it is not easy.

A bad easy hole offers mindless escape from poor shots.

[T_MacWood]

I like Wethered and Simpson's take on 'bad' holes, they wrote that every great golf course should have at least one bad hole. Their definition of a 'bad' was closer to 'contraversial'. When they put together their ideal or eclectic 18, they made a point of inclucing one 'bad' hole -- their choice The Alps.

[TEPaul]

rg;

Good reply.

Tom MacW:

Maybe C.B. Macdonald tried to do away with that "bad" hole importance and definition of Simpson & Wethered's when he basically came up with the paradigm of "18 good holes" at NGLA.

[Lloyd_Cole]

2 mediocre holes which make an otherwise excellent routing possible is quite an acceptable ratio. 100% of acreage is unlikely to be ideal terrain. See County Down, Royal Melbourne West..
Note also, these courses were routed when long green to tee walks were unacceptable.

[T_MacWood]

TE
On the contrary, I'd say Macdonald accepted the importance of bad or contraversial holes in layout--incorporating both Prestwick's Alps and Sandwich's Sahara at the NGLA.

Darwin was another who often spoke of the benefits of bad holes:

"A golfing hole, the character of which is all bad had better be abolished, but a hole with a great deal of character and just a little badness is worth a hundred of the blameless creations of orthodox architecture"

I always think of Tom Fazio when I read that.

[TEPaul]

"Their definition of a 'bad' was closer to 'contraversial'. When they put together their ideal or eclectic 18, they made a point of inclucing one 'bad' hole -- their choice The Alps."

Tom MacW:

When Simpson and Wethred said something like that they may have said it simply to deal with an interesting reality---a changing reality perhaps! And there's probably little doubt they were totally aware of that changing reality---and this description of theirs as a "bad" hole being a "controversial" hole and one that's perhaps necessary on a golf course seems to be good evidence of that.

If the "Alps" hole was truly their example of a "Bad" hole one must first appreciate that a hole like an "Alps" hole was at one time--in early golf, considered to be a "prized" type of hole simply because blindness in golf was once considered to be a "prized" offering in golf.

But that changed dramatically and very ironically to the other extreme. The reasons that happened are most interesting and varied!

One should consider carefully that at NGLA Macdonald designed a number of holes, perhaps up to five or more of them that had interesting aspects of blindness, even if played properly! At the time Macdonald built NGLA or shortly thereafter some of the best architects in America and perhaps Europe too began to write, at least, that blindness in golf and architecture was no longer a good thing but a bad thing.

It's interesting that a very productive architect such as Ross did write this but that he also continued to build holes with elements of the thing he said was not really acceptable---eg blindness!

We should all come to appreciate better the things some of even the best architects said and did were not always the same and the reasons why that may have happened!

Regarding the idea of "controversial" holes we all know what Alister MacKenzie said about that, best evidenced by his disappointment in but understanding of why those otherwise "controversial" holes of CPC were not generally recognized as such!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()