Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jud_T on October 31, 2010, 03:55:22 PM
-
Under the title "How do I get my course nationally rated?" in the current issue of Golfweek our sometime contributor Brad Klein, whose opinions I generally hold in the highest regard, states the following:
"2. If a hole needs explaining, it doesn't work...On the course, everything should be self-evident, whether it's how a hole plays or where the next hole lies."
I assume we can all agree with the "where the next hole lies" part, but I'm not sure I agree with the first assertion. What about blind shots, hidden pot bunkers or subtle ground-game options that only reveal themselves over multiple plays? What about the finer points of strategy which can only be gleaned from trial and error or from a really good caddy who knows your game inside and out? What about figuring out fun, crazy greens? Hell, I'm still figuring out how to best play several holes at my club...
-
Jud,
There's a big difference between a hole being self-evident overall and being self-evident from the tee. I'm assuming Brad meant that the hole should be evident after one has played it, whether it be once or a few times. Your comments about blindness and options are still things that can be figured out by playing the hole, but perhaps not from the tee the first time around. I take Brad's comments to mean that if you play the hole and then go "huh?" that's probably not a good thing. And from my experience, he's right.
-
Stand on the 1st tee of Winged Foot West. If you've never played there before you will simply try to hit your tee shot down the middle and will most likely see that nice big generous flat landing area on the left side. Place a perfect drive there and you've made a mistake.
Sorry Brad, not all holes should have the preferred method of playing it to be self-evident. No one would ever say that this hole isn't world-class and yet the place you want your drive to be is as far right in the bend of the fairway as you can get. The reason? Because the green has a series of undulations that run straight down it AT AN ANGLE to the center and left portions of the fairway. Shots that come into it from there run the very great risk of striking the face of one of the undulations and kicking right toward and into the rough or greenside bunker.
It was for that very reason that during the 1929 Open both Espinoza and Jones played their tee shots to that right corner and even into the rough so that their approach shots would more easily find the green.
That hole shares a feature with many other great Tillinghast ones where the only way to truly understand the hole design and how to play it is by looking back down the length of it from BEHIND the green! This is not a surprise as Tilly himself wrote that when he visited a course he had never before seen he always stood behind a hole to get an understanding of its architectural intent.
That definitely does not sound like a person who would agree with Brad and Golfweek's version of defining architectural intent and how it should be readily apparent at the tee.
Andy, I'm not so sure you're correct there. Many a very good hole requires multiple plays before one can truly understand the design strategies and the subtleties of them especially iof it one from the Golden Age. Again, WFW #1 is a great example of this. Why did it destroy the pros at the Open in the 70's? Because there drives were shorter and their shots into the green were with longer irons and the ball flights were lower, all qualities that magnify the importance of entering that green dead straight on.
Today's player who hits it higher, farther, with more spin and less side-to-side movement (draw or fade) has an inherent advantage over the other style of play, yet the hole was not designed with that style of play in mind. The large undulations with greater green speeds become more of a challenge for them and so it is still viewed as world-class. The fact is, though, that the design intent of how to play the hole as designed by tillinghast has become even more hidden because of the technological advances and is therefor LESS self-evident.
-
I don't know why a hole should be self evident. The implication is that every person ought to be able to understand the nuances of golf architecture, which would mean we have to design for the lowest common denominator.
There are some golf holes I am still trying to figure out -- and I think that means they are really GOOD holes, not bad ones.
-
I feel like most designs are TOO evident... and that subtlety is a lost art
most great holes I've seen have nuances that cannot be appreciated the first time around
-
I don't know why a hole should be self evident. The implication is that every person ought to be able to understand the nuances of golf architecture, which would mean we have to design for the lowest common denominator.
There are some golf holes I am still trying to figure out -- and I think that means they are really GOOD holes, not bad ones.
Si!
Ciao
-
Brad is a smart fellow. Maybe he meant it in a declaration of independence sort of way, ie "we hold these truths to be self-evident". Kind of like something George Will would say, but from a different perspective...
Peter
-
Andy Troeger writes:
I'm assuming Brad meant that the hole should be evident after one has played it, whether it be once or a few times.
If a statement needs explaining, it doesn't work.
I would strongly disagree with Mr. Klein. Good holes improve with each playing because many of the better features of a hole are not self evident immediately. Blah holes need no explanation.
Cheers,
Dan King
Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.
Galileo Galilei
-
Of course, everyone so far has strongly disagreed with Brad - which makes me think that he just might be right! Like Tertullian saying "I believe because it is absurd".
Peter
-
I'll jump on the band wagon and say this seems like a strange thing to say. The best holes for me are the ones I'm still trying to figure out.
-
Did Professor Bradley Klein really say that?
Well maybe he did. Brad has been saying some curious things lately about golf and architecture. Not six weeks ago at Mountain Ridge I saw him hit a drive of very questionable execution off the 11th tee into a tree not far from the tee and he then proceeded to freak out and curse a blue streak and blame it on the tree! ;)
I think Bradley needs to do one of two things to continue his GCA education:
1. Turn "self evident" and "experience" into virtual GCA synonyms.
2. Read a lot more of Max Behr!
However, Bradley, I will stipulate that the day at Mountain Lake may've been an anomaly for you as it was sort of raining but more importantly you had your sweater tucked into your pants. Rain is one thing but tucking your sweater into your pants is the absolute pinnacle of GEEKDOME and nobody, not even a superstar can hit a decent drive with regularity with their sweater tucked into their pants as in the pinnacle of GEEKDOME.
-
Well, on the only GREAT course I've ever played - Crystal Downs - I don't remember one hole where I didn't KNOW/SEE pretty quickly exactly what the hole was ASKING of me. But quite often what I saw was that it was asking me to make a CHOICE -- and, judging from the scores I shot I must've made the WRONG choice quite often that day. So, while I can understand how many of the holes at CD would take some time to FIGURE OUT, that doesn't mean they aren't SELF EVIDENT. It just means that the DATUM presented by those golf holes demands/requires my full ATTENTION.
Peter
-
When I have guests, I try to do a decent bit of explaining to them, but that's becuase Ross is a genius using visual deception. I wouldnt say it's becuase the holes are bad.
Mark
-
If a hole needs to be explained to Brad it doesn't work under the context of getting your course highly rated by Golfweek. I find this to be perfectly acceptable and am surprised it needed to be explained.
-
I have a feeling that Brad is referencing a trip to the airport he twittered about, in real time, sometime last year. If you really want to know how to get your course rated highly by Golfweek I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee and follow Brad on Twitter.
-
When I have guests, I try to do a decent bit of explaining to them, but that's becuase Ross is a genius using visual deception. I wouldnt say it's becuase the holes are bad.
Mark
Mark,
I hate to break it to you, but I once went through Ross plans in the Tufts Archives for a full day (it was raining at the '99 US Open). I checked some of the plans where he was said to have used this feature, like 15 on No. 2. Nowhere did he mention cutting a swale in front of the green to make it look further away, there or anywhere else. He often mentioned that to build up the back of the green to see it and hold shots that the contractor could take dirt out of the front of the green.
If he was a genius, I think he was an accidental genius in that regard. :)
-
Ditto Tom Doak!! Well said!
Lester
-
Jeff,
Why would he mention his reasoning in achitectural plans? In the plans/drawings that line the my club's walls, he mentions nothing about visual deception, but if you play the course, there's plenty there!
Mark
-
;D :D ;D
Pretty strange comment unless Klein was alluding to the old adage that great courses tend to be "right out in front of you"' Lots of the old pros first priority was to keep the ball there.
As someone who claims some good knowledge of Pine Valley , a great golf course" one of the most interesting things is that stategies are changing daily , oftern dictated by the pin position. You certainly could not glean these strategies at first look, or at least I've never seen anyone who did.
-
Do we have any examples of holes that actually DO need to be explained?
-
Mark,
If it was something he was going for and using his in house crew, I would think he might. Its been a while since I read Golf Has Never Failed Me, but I don't recall off hand him mentioning it there either. Of course, Ron Whitten may have edited that out, but I don't think he would.
-
BTW, to answer the original question, there is a difference, IMHO, in having a variety of strategies, strategies that vary daily based on pin setting, wind, and the like, and maybe even a potential shot hidden from you the first time, and a hole where you say "WTF?"
And yes, while there may be blind shots, the general direction should be clear with some kind of definition.
-
Do we have any examples of holes that actually DO need to be explained?
I hope someone can answer Jim's question. He went to the trouble of thinking of and typing out 14 whole words....
-
“The vital thing about a hole is that it should be either more difficult than it looks or look more difficult than it is. It must never be what it looks.”`
Tom Simpson
...As subscribed to by Ally McIntosh
-
Do we have any examples of holes that actually DO need to be explained?
I hope someone can answer Jim's question. He went to the trouble of thinking of and typing out 14 whole words....
Which is a real effort today...but the question remains...
-
Jim,
I will be happy to name a hole if you tell me who is doing the explaining to whomb.
-
I keep going back to #2 @ NGLA. The safe side looks to be the right side. That's where the fairway is. Nope!
It was not self evident from the tee that carrying the left side of the Sahara was ideal. I thought I had paid the price of ignorance. Maybe it was more like a toll.
-
Jim,
I will be happy to name a hole if you tell me who is doing the explaining to whomb.
Thanks John.
-
Anyone who has ever been in contention in a member guest understands that explaining the strategy of a hole is more a function of your lug head partner than its architectural worth.
In theory I would agree with Brad that once you have to start explaining a hole to your partner call off the presses.
-
John,
Isn't it the combination of "your lughead partner" AND "the hole's architectural worth"?
Don't you have to guess how that guy will best play the hole?
-
John,
Isn't it the combination of "your lughead partner" AND "the hole's architectural worth"?
Don't you have to guess how that guy will best play the hole?
Tell me a great hole where we don't have to guess how we or our partners will best play the hole.
-
Do we have any examples of holes that actually DO need to be explained?
I hope someone can answer Jim's question. He went to the trouble of thinking of and typing out 14 whole words....
Which is a real effort today...but the question remains...
Isn't the safe answer to every question "10 at Riviera"?
-
When I was caddying, I postulated that a hole where all I had to say was "left center" was not as interesting a hole as say the 8th at Pebble, where I needed to describe not just the ideal location but also an about distance. Peter, funny you mention CD because I thought of it too. Specifically the drive on the 5th and the 7th green. I suppose 17 also works here because real thought needs to go into that drive.
-
Frankly, I think most here are reading way too much into Brad's comment. Considering he's linking this with the idea of where the next hole is, I think he's talking about this on a very basic level.
I've played many a hole that is not self-evident in a very poor way--for example, you might need to explain to someone who's never played the course that the blind fairway is 50 yards left of where you would reasonably guess it to be. These are bad golf holes and I've seen more than a few on a number of modern courses. I think that's what Mr. klein is likely referring to--not that the subtleties of strategy on WFW#1 make the hole bad.
-
When I was caddying, I postulated that a hole where all I had to say was "left center" was not as interesting a hole as say the 8th at Pebble, where I needed to describe not just the ideal location but also an about distance. Peter, funny you mention CD because I thought of it too. Specifically the drive on the 5th and the 7th green. I suppose 17 also works here because real thought needs to go into that drive.
How about the drive on 13? I had no idea how far a drive down the right side will go until I accidentally shoved over there. Left center looks like the proper line. I wound up 30 yards past my mates with a 7 iron into a front pin.
-
John,
Isn't it the combination of "your lughead partner" AND "the hole's architectural worth"?
Don't you have to guess how that guy will best play the hole?
Tell me a great hole where we don't have to guess how we or our partners will best play the hole.
John,
Every hole is a guess for everybody in my opinion.
-
"How to play a hole" and "how to score on a hole" are two different things, right?
-
"How to play a hole" and "how to score on a hole" are two different things, right?
Only if your skill level is so low you are left trying to dazzle people with your intelligence.
-
Since I first read this thread, it struck me as being incomplete. The quote was not in context and is probably why most appear to be shocked by Dr. Klein's comments.
So, I went and found the article.
Here's what's missing.
There's nothing worse than a hole that's so confusing that you need to see it on a GPS monitor to figure out where it's going, or what the options are. If a hole is that complicated, it's probably worth re-designing. On the course, everything should be self-evident, whether it's how a hole plays or where the next hole lies
With the context, there's no question Dr. Klein is correct.
-
Many golf course architects and pundits would have us believe that a great golf hole is tougher to decipher than Rubik's Cube.
Sure, great architecture has its nuances, but few if any holes are a great mystery to be either solved or unraveled after much time and effort.
Mike
-
I keep going back to #2 @ NGLA. The safe side looks to be the right side. That's where the fairway is. Nope!
It was not self evident from the tee that carrying the left side of the Sahara was ideal. I thought I had paid the price of ignorance. Maybe it was more like a toll.
Jeff, I hate to burst your bubble but I know an 18 year old kid to make a one there this year. The hole must have been damned self evident to him!
Bogey
-
Many golf course architects and pundits would have us believe that a great golf hole is tougher to decipher than Rubik's Cube.
Sure, great architecture has its nuances, but few if any holes are a great mystery to be either solved or unraveled after much time and effort.
Mike
Bogey
Yes, for the most part you are right. I still struggle with a few holes I know well, but that has at least as much to do with the myths I created as it does with hole itself.
Ciao
-
Since I first read this thread, it struck me as being incomplete. The quote was not in context and is probably why most appear to be shocked by Dr. Klein's comments.
So, I went and found the article.
Here's what's missing.
There's nothing worse than a hole that's so confusing that you need to see it on a GPS monitor to figure out where it's going, or what the options are. If a hole is that complicated, it's probably worth re-designing. On the course, everything should be self-evident, whether it's how a hole plays or where the next hole lies
With the context, there's no question Dr. Klein is correct.
Good find Adam, but it still leaves me with the question of whether this is before playing the hole or after one or more times...any thoughts?
-
Jim. I'm under the impression its primarily meant when playing the hole for the first time and while you're playing it. Since the article is about the rating process, it makes sense to me that way.
I"l add more when I get home but any hole without a clue on where to go, in a general sense, is like Brad says probably a poorly designed hole.
-
If it is intended as it seems, you probably won't like (or rate lower) many of the best links.
-
John, I highly doubt that's the case. While I haven't been over, in the pictures I've seen, there always seems to be some clue on where to go. Be it an aiming rock, or a pole. The need to look in the yardage book is mitigated, and carts with GPS would be sacrilege.
Sully, I'm certain it's while playing the hole. The only possible issue one could have with Brad's quote is the word "everything". I'm confident he meant in the direction of the hole, and not the nuances that make so many great holes, great.
-
I think that the 7th hole at Kingsley is less self-evident than many. The first time through it becomes even more perplexing on the second shot than on the tee shot. Having now played it multiple times, it has become my favorite par 5 on the course.
I'd love to hear more about what Brad Klein had in mind when he wrote this, perhaps with some examples.
If by direction he simply means something as basic as the golfer ought to know which general direction to face when standing on the tee then I think most if us would agree. To continue the example of Kingsley #7, I obviously know which direction to go but there is no comfort in club selection. On the second shot, even with repeated plays, while the general direction is easily understood it is challenging to pick your line and I would argue that shot is not self-evident. But I would also argue that the hole is wonderful.
-
I don't think his statement was really about architecture or course quality. I think what he is saying here is "don't bother me with all these excuses and explanations, because if you have to make them your course isn't that good." This is evident by the last sentence of that note: "Also, a pleasant greeting from the starter is fine, but spare us the long litany of rules, explanations and elaborations."
Which brings me to my problem with this article. IT AIN'T ABOUT GOLF COURSES, IT IS ABOUT THE PROPER WAY TO HANDLE RATERS!
I mean give me a break! Little or nothing about good land, a solid design, variety of holes, playability, walkability, interest, etc. The article is essentially . . . How to Properly Kiss My Ass, by Brad Klien: Not too wet . . . no lipstick please, but chap-stick a must . . . easy with the teeth . . . maybe blow in my ear a little first.
What a freaking joke is this rating game.
If you want your course to be top 100, join a top 100 course. If your course isn't a top 100 course, knowing how to kiss Brad Klein's ass ought not be an issue.
Sorry Brad, you seem like a great guy, but this article is much too much.
-
Tim,
If you need know only the general direction, the comment is almost meaningless as you almost always (almost) know which direction to face, etc. Maybe that is what is meant by GPS thing, but I took GPS to be an slight exaggeration to make a point.
Adam,
I think most would be lost on several holes at the TOC course if you had no book, no prior reading, and no caddy. You might generally know but you would often be in the rough, or much worse. Very likely you would hit on a line into the rough, or on a line that will bounce into the rough. The same would apply at many other links courses, on many holes. There are many blind, and many semi-blind tee shots, many blind bunkers, and many where a tee shot crosses over the hill and then kicks into high roughs. There are many holes where you do know the general direction but the blind bunkers are quite dangerous, and nothing is evident until the first play.
If it is after your first play, then the statement really makes no sense. As often attributed to Tommy Armour nothing is blind after you play the hole or something like that.
I think it will be explained when Bard posts.
David,
Thank for the laughs.
-
John - I agree with you. You said it much more eloquently but I was thinking if he meant it as basic as which way do I need to face to play the next hole, why bother putting that in print?
That's why I jumped to a looser definition which would lump the hole I mentioned, and for that matter a good bit of the course, as one that is not self-evident and yet it only shows up in Golfweek's ratings and not the others. I guess that is what I find odd about the comment. The Golfweek ratings seem to produce results that reward courses that I would consider to be less self-evident in many cases.
As Bogey said there isn't any rocket science in this, but some courses certainly encourage or require more thought than others.
I find it a bit ironic that the statement has proved to be anything but self-evident to this group!