Rumor has it.....

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Finishing with a par five is not really a new strategic concept to me.  

Before Sebonack I had done it at my first course, High Pointe; and also at Black Forest, Beechtree, Riverfront, Stonewall (North), and Pacific Dunes.  One or two of those are among my best finishing holes, but the rest are among my worst.  Fortunately Sebonack's 18th turned out in the top group.

[Dan_Callahan]

Tom,

If I may ask, which are which (best and worst)?

Beechtree is the only course of those you listed that I have played, and I really liked the 18th. It seemed to play much longer than its yardage, perhaps because the uphill climb.

I've got to say that in theory I understand the potential negative psychological impact of a long and or difficult par 4 finish. In practice, however, tough par 4s are some of my favorite finishing holes—in particular the 18th at the Orchards and Hickory Ridge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

From the initial concept to the finished product how much theoretical tinkering or fine tuning in the field goes on with all 18 holes.

It would seem that once a "prefered" routing is established that the focus shifts to the features of the individual holes.

And, once that threshold has been crossed, how much ongoing refinement occurs, or, is it random in nature ?

[George Pazin]

The thing is that seldom do bystanders have it all worked out what their suggestion means to other holes in the system ... it is highly possible that improving the 18th hole could make a course worse, because of what it leads to elsewhere.

This is a statement that many would not understand. If you have a chance, I'd love to hear you expand on it a bit.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Even when you are doing the routing you are thinking about the strategy of the individual holes ... a drawing may just look like centerlines, but the tee and green and landing area have been placed so that certain natural features come into play in certain spots.  The bunkers are going to fit best where there is a slight rise, so that you can build a bunker and easily get the water not to drain into it; I'm likely to have routed the hole in question so that rise is 200-280 yards out and not 130, and I know which side of the hole it will be on.  But, I have the power to change some of those things around if I decide it would be clearly superior another way.

At the start of construction of any course there are some holes where I have a pretty clear idea of what I want to do strategically, and others where I am still uncertain.  (Of course, in a collaborative process like Sebonack, I couldn't commit as certainly on any one hole right away.  When possible I will build the "easy" holes first to give myself more time to ponder the others, but we have to proceed in some sort of logical order for the irrigation to be installed.)  My general approach is that I'm learning the land more and more with every site visit, so I'm open-minded on every one of the holes if something different and better happens to strike me.

I don't think about the individual holes too much while I am away from the site ... just on the way there and sometimes making notes on the way home.  But of course I have other associates on site who are thinking about the holes all the way through.  Before I leave at the end of one visit I will go over the next 3-4 holes with my asssociate or the shapers, so they can get things roughed in for me to finalize my next time through ... sometimes I will give them exact instructions of what I'd like them to do, other times I will be deliberately vague to let them figure it out.

When Jim Urbina and I walked through the first couple of holes we were going to build and I gave him instructions before I was leaving, Jim Lipe was with us, and after we were done with the ninth green (which took about three minutes to talk through) JWL asked JU when I was going to give him more detailed instructions ... and JU responded that I just had given him everything he needed.  I remember clearly how incredulous JL was that I wasn't going to give JU any more detail than that.  The result was one of the better greens on the course, and one of the few that we never really tweaked much on subsequent visits.

Other architects obviously do it differently, but I prefer to give my associates no more information than absolutely necessary.  The other approach often produces a conflict where the green won't work exactly as drawn and it has to be modified; by giving just the bare essentials of how I want it to work, I reduce the odds that we'll build something that doesn't fit.

George P:

I thought I explained that pretty well to Tom Paul, that our choices of what to do with the 18th hole also affected the site of the first green and second tee and seventeenth green.  If you make the 18th better, but the other three holes are compromised in the process, then you shouldn't have changed the 18th.  No hole exists in a vacuum, each is just one piece out of 18 that have to fit together.

[TEPaul]

"Tom:
Finishing with a par five is not really a new strategic concept to me."

TomD:

I didn't say finishing with a par 5 was a new strategic concept. I only said finishing with a par 5 is a different strategic concept from finishing with a long par 4. It sounds to me like Mike considered it an important enough difference to have pushed to alter it to a par 5?  I'm not arguing with you as he didn't tell me that, you told me he pushed to get you and Jack to alter it to par 5 because he felt a par 5 may sit better with the membership when they're done the round. All I'm saying is I can certainly understand his point, as I recall you said you could too. I'm certainly not saying either is right or wrong, just that there certainly is a difference at the finish.