You've got it backwards !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you learn more about a hole, architecturally, by examining it backwards, from behind the green back to the tee, or from the tee to the green ?

Many golfers who play NGLA feel that it is a natural course based on the order of play of the golf course.

But, walking the course backwards, in reverse, from behind the 18th green to the 1st tee, reveals far more about the construction of the course, especially the green sites, surrounds and tees.

Is this a better method for analyzing the architecture ?

Is it the genius of TOC ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

This is a great question! Personally, I can't see the utility of walking a golf course or looking at a hole in reverse--for most people anyway. Some say that's the best way to see or understand strategy. I can't see that at all. Why would that be the best way to see strategy? Is that the way anyone plays the course, or a hole? Of course not! But of course I'm a guy who could never see a thing on a putt by going to the other side and looking at it in reverse. I can only read putts from behind the direction I'm going to hit the putt!

On the other hand, if you're as intersted in seeing exactly how architecture was constructed as we are, I completely agree with you-- look at a course, or holes, particularly a green from behind it!

This is most interesting in the older courses (like NGLA) where and when they didn't have the ability to move as much earth and basically they never really tied things in behind greens, or on the sides and such. Some of the old Ross courses are really that way. You go behind some of those early greens and things can get really abrupt--just sort of sawed off--and that's very interesting to see.

It's even more interesting on the old courses because obviously an architect never expected golfers to analyze things from back there.

With this kind of thing I use the analogy of looking at a play from behind the set! It's sort of like looking back through the set at the audience! That way you sort of get the feeling you can see all the ways the architect created the set--set the stage--and created the play for the audience--the golfer coming at any hole from tee to green--that's from the "audience" direction!

I think that way--from the reverse--you can sort of see "all the strings", so to speak! It's somewhat like going behind the Wizard of Oz--going behind his curtain and seeing the little man pulling the strings and pushing the buttons and creating this big effect for the "audience" on the other side. But who's interested in doing that except people like us?

A hole to do that on, Pat--is NGLA's #8--in and around the green and particularly from the right side and from the rear. What you can do is get out far enough where you know ground was never touched and just work slowly inward towards the green until you can clearly see where things started to get "tied in" or where they started to take fill or add fill. And that's very interesting.

One day Kye Goalby and I spent a good hour out there around #8. We could see exactly how they did that green and green-end in every single way!

[ChipOat]

Pat:

I actually did that once at National many years ago (pre-yardage book) to get distances from the center of each green.

I was amazed at how many approach shots I got a good feel for by turning around and looking back at the green every 20 yards or so.

Should probably have continued the process on each hole all the way to the tee box.

[ian]

Pat,

Yes! When I last walked Pinehurst before starting a new project based loosely on the design style I walked the course backwards. When you review the green contour and slope, you learn how best to approach either the whole green or a particular pin position. Next you move out to that ideal location and access the risk for trying to play to that location. From accessing each ideal shot you have a clearer picture of how to attack the course. It becomes whether you can play the actual shots, and you remove all the built in elements of disception.

It also makes it easier to plan your own strategies for a hole by working backwards too. Angle a green to favour a side, create the risk/reward for getting to that location. It works for me anyway, I'm sure others have there own preferances.

[Doug Wright]

Pat,

Good point. I don't know if it's a "better" way to study the architecture of a golf hole but it's certainly an excellent supplement to the analysis. In the past year or so I've developed a habit of looking back down a golf hole as I finish it. You sometimes can really see what was going on with the hole by looking from the target back to the tee.

All The Best,    

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, Chipoat, Doug,

Don't you feel as though you can better determine where the architect wanted you to approach the green from, by standing behind it, rather than in the fairway, facing it ?

And doesn't that tell you where to drive the ball, better than making that determination from the tee ?

[Forrest Richardson]

I think more can be gained by walking a course/hole the way it is played than from any other origin. This is not to say that looking backwards is not beneficial -- but it is no substitute for the way the course is played.

No, TOC is simply appreciated ffrom whatever direction you begin. If, for example, you have a coffee and an egg in town and walk doen the road to No. 17 green and then off toward the sea...you look at the course from this perspective and viola! -- there you see it. If, on the other hand, you begin at No. 1 and continue the way around, will, you look at it from this way. Simple. Always works.

[ChipOat]

Patrick:

The answer is "yes" - assuming I can actually SEE the approach location from behind the green.  For example, it's tough to tell much standing by the bell tower behind NGLA #3 looking back towards the fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

That's true,

But, it is a blind hole,

And standing behind the green, up on the bell tower gives you a much better perspective on the greens surroundings, safe and dangerous landing zones.

Standing up on the hill and looking back to the tee gives you some added perspective as well.

Do you know, that for years, I thought the hole was a slight dogleg, and that it is actually much straighter then it appeared to me.

[Doug Wright]

Pat,

Yes, one often can see the angles better from the green. Since so many of the greens are elevated relative to the fairway--even if only slightly--one get's a very different perspective from the green than when approaching.

All The Best,

[Jamie_Duffner]

Pat - I've often wondered the same thing.  This is a very interesting debate.  I've tend to look back down the fairway or to the tee when I'm finished playing hole.  I do think it gives a different perspective and can lend strategic insight, particularly elevated greens as Doug states.  For those who have played Bethage Black, the view from the green on 2, 4, 5, 15, and 17 are quite revealing.  As someone who has played this course a lot, these views reveal angles that are not as apparent from the tee.  It also gives a different feel for yardages.

I think it comes down to the fact that a golf hole is a sequence of more precise shots.  Drive is to a fairway, if you're good to a section of fairway.  Obviously, a strategic hole favors a section of fairway.  An approach or tee shot on a par 3 is targeting for most of us a green, for the better player a section of green that is considerably smaller than the target area for a drive.  A long putt is targeting the imaginery "3 foot circle," while the shorter putt, the hole, but no more than one foot around the hole.  Then of course we have the tap in.  When I stand next to the hole, look back to the tee (if I can see it), I certainly gain a new perspective on the angle of play.  Instead of looking from the tee at a hole from broad areas to small ones, you are now looking at a hole from the smallest target back to the largest.  I think it makes a difference.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
You might be on to something, Travis had a fascination with courses that played backward and obviously his record was outstanding. He devised a plan to play PVGC backward and designed several courses that were bi-. Is GCGC played backward?

[ForkaB]

To me the best way to learn something looking backwards is to watch people play the hole.  Stand just past the driving area and see what happens to actual golf shots, hit by real people, of varying abilities and shot trajectories.  You will learn pretty quickly what the "shot values" are for the drive.  Then stand behind the green and see what happens to a variety of types of shot hit with a varying quality of execution.  No better way to see how the green complex really "works."  Then watch the short games, again from the "back."  If I ever wanted to understand and document the nature of a golf hole, I'd spend a whole day doing this.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Not to my knowledge, but it may have been.

I can see a good number of holes where this would be easily accomplished.

I'll try to find out if they ever had an event which played the course backwards.

[JThompson]

Mucci and Paul - You are crazy.  I walked the Old Course and Muirfield in reverse, and I had no idea where I was going.  Those courses were not designed to be played backwards.  

Would you suggest playing Augusta in reverse?  How would you play No. 12 or 16?

[Chris Kane]

JThompson, I have a surprise for you.  The Old Course was originally played "backwards".

[Matthew Mollica]

Guys -

Didn't Gary Player have a habit of jogging around the course, following a day's play, in part for fitness, but in part, for EXACTLY the reasons Pat describes ?

Matthew

[TEPaul]

JThompson:

You should get in the habit of reading what you remark about on here. Where did I say I advocate walking a course in reverse?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JThompson,

Perhaps you're right, perhaps TEPaul and I are crazy,
hopefully, like foxes.

The Old Course, St Andrews was designed and played backwards until fairly recently, considering its age.

Last summer the backward routing was played for the month of August, I believe.

Have you ever played TOC ?

[David Lott]

Walk it in winter, with snow on the ground.

You'll learn a lot about the coutouring.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Davidslott,

Late in the afternoon/evening, when the sun is low and shadows long is even better, provided you don't have to contend with the shadows from nearby trees.

If you've ever put car headlights on a green at night, you can really see the contours.

Chevy Chase, aka Ty Webb had it right about night putting  

[David Lott]

It's been quite a while since I was near a green in a car at night, and as I recall I had reason to want to keep the lights off.

[Doug Wright]

John V/T Huckaby,

I just read on the GD 2003 thread that you and others rate courses backwards sometimes. Since you didn't mention it on this thread (which seems an appropriate place to discuss it), my question is--why (other than to limit disturbing the same foursome)? Isn't it different, or are you merely looking at the same things just in different order? Is Pat Mucci therefore correct in his opening post on this thread--that going over a course backwards is the better way to appreciate the architecture/design and even the rating of a course?

Please enlighten us heathen non-raters...

Thanks,

[THuckaby2]

Doug:

First of all, please remember the "rating" JV and I were talking about is the process teams from regional associations take to come up with "course rating" and "slope".  The calculations and assessments for such are VERY subjective and scientific - we have very specific things we measure and look for, and the latter are either there or they're not... everything is put on tables and numerical evaluations are noted.  There is a little objectivity, but not much and only in very specific assessments... That's the best way I can describe the process without getting into excruciatingly boring detail.

Thus in this process, it matters not where you start, as you have to evaluate each part of the hole anyway - green surface (contour and speed) is one thing, presence and depth of bunkers is another, fairway width at prescribed landing areas, presence of hazards, presence of ob, all this plus several more are all assessed and calculated independently... Hopefully you can see that since each is being independently assessed, it doesn't matter if you start at the green or at the tee - you have to do it all anyway.

JV and I seem to agree that starting at the tee works best - to me it just seems a more normal flow and our charts are organized with that in mind also... but it is very reasonable to do it backwards and JV makes a great point that doing it that way disrupts play a lot less.

So this discussion really is wholly different from Pat's question... which is a good one... but what we're doing has nothing to do with trying to assess architectural merit or how "good" a hole is in any way shape or form.

Does this make any sense?

TH

[Doug Wright]

TH,

Yes, since this is all very precise and scientific I suppose it doesn't matter which end of the elephant you start with...

It is much different than the highly subjective ratings discussed on the GD thread and others, which is why I was confused. Thanks.