Is there an architectural/playability reason for everything ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Like benign starting holes and lackluster finishing holes.

In the early part of the 20th century, through the "Golden Age", golf was primarily conducted and represented as a match play game.

Today, with the PGA Tour on TV every weekend, golf seems to have transitioned to a medal play mentality amongst viewers.

In addition, golf seems to have transitioned, in terms of perception and contexting, from the amateurs game to the PGA Tour players game.

Perhaps that explains why a great number of finishing holes crafted in the early 20th century don't seem like the ideal finishing holes for the medal play mentality.

Many have been altered and/or lengthened considerably to comform to the transition.
18th holes like the ones at Baltusrol Lower, WFW and Congressional are good examples.

Reverting back to "Golden Age" courses, which finishing par 5's have stood the test of time and continue to offer a great challenge for the amateur and local golfer, without much in the way of alterations.

I would submit that Pebble Beach is one.

I also believe that the 18th at Old Oaks may be another.
It's an incredibly challenging, but not overwhelming finishing hole

What are some others

[JNC Lyon]

I think many courses in the early 20th century were routed with the match play mentality in mind.  Courses started off very slowly and started to build steam by the end of the front nine.  The best holes come on the back nine, with the very best to be found in the 13-17 range.  The 18th hole would then be a straightforward march back to the clubhouse, keeping in mind that the last hole often didn't matter in a match.  If a match did go to such an 18th hole, it would be a simple and fair way to decide a tight match.

I found countless examples of this type of routing in the British Isles, including such courses as Deal, Swinley Forest, Addington (these are the best examples), North Berwick, and Royal Dornoch.

In the states, Merion might be an example of this type of routing.

Was Donald Ross one of the first architects to ignore this loose format?  His courses tend to start and end on strong notes.

[Tom_Doak]

JNC:  I have read a couple of times in older books that some architects felt that it was important for the first hole to be "a good 19th" for matches that went extra time.  Possibly that explains Ross's willingness to feature long par-4 openers.  George Thomas used short par-5 holes for the same reason ... easy intro, but you'd need to make birdie if the match went long.

[Niall C]

Jon/Tom,

Thats an interesting idea but can you point to any literature, either from the architect themselves or from some commentator stating that was how it was done. Not saying you're wrong but would be interested to read more about it.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

That concept would seem to have merit.

I wonder how the ODG's style or architectural concepts evolved during their careers ?

I wonder if there are identifiable traits or trends evident during their productive years.

You might have insight into that in terms of your own career.

How have your ideas/concepts/design perceptions evolved from the time you started to present day ?

[Cristian]

For some links courses I feel the clubhouses tend to be on the village, or town side of the course, often in the transition area between meadow land/richer soil and the real dunes/links stuff.

Might that be the reason that often opening and closing holes are on flatter less sandy ground, taking the golfer into (1) and away (18) from the dunesland, and therefore often produce less interesting holes, at least in terms of movement?

 RSG, Machrihanish (yes I know, the 1st hole does have other merits), Portrush, Deal, are more or less examples of this I feel (although it has been a while since I was at RCP, so correct me if I'm wrong). Especially in the case of RSG I actually thought the difference was quite remarkable, both visually and in the way the soil felt softer. Is this just coincidence?

Anyone else know of any examples of such?

[Sean_A]

I think many courses in the early 20th century were routed with the match play mentality in mind.  Courses started off very slowly and started to build steam by the end of the front nine.  The best holes come on the back nine, with the very best to be found in the 13-17 range.  The 18th hole would then be a straightforward march back to the clubhouse, keeping in mind that the last hole often didn't matter in a match.  If a match did go to such an 18th hole, it would be a simple and fair way to decide a tight match.

I found countless examples of this type of routing in the British Isles, including such courses as Deal, Swinley Forest, Addington (these are the best examples), North Berwick, and Royal Dornoch.

In the states, Merion might be an example of this type of routing.

Was Donald Ross one of the first architects to ignore this loose format?  His courses tend to start and end on strong notes.

JNC

I don't think designing for matchplay was nearly as much on the minds of ODG as some here are suggesting.  I certainly don't believe there was any sort of concept of designing 13-17 as the best part of the course and I don't believe your examples demonstrate your theory very well.

I will buy that some guys wanted a compromise opener which worked well to ease into the game, but also as a 19th hole - to some degree. Personally, I wouldn't differentiate between what works  best for match or medal play.  For all the best courses it doesn't matter - they are just very good courses regardless of what form of golf is played.  Can anyone imagine saying they don't want to play medal golf on the nearly all the best courses?  I can recall reading very little (other than about the 1st working as good 19th to end the match near the house) from the ODGs about designing for types of golf.  Most of the best archies would have wanted to create a rhythm to the routing which gave opportunities to the golfer to reach emotional, mental and physical highs and lows through how well they dealt with various questions asked of them.

Ciao   

[Mike Hendren]

"It's an incredibly challenging, but not overwhelming finishing hole"


Patrick, you could just have easily written this about the 18th at National Golf Links of America.  I think it's loaded with strategy and really requires the player to both know his game and execute both distance and direction accordingly.  Tremendous match or stroke play finisher as there's pressure on the better player to make 4 but a real possibilty of making 6 with an indifferent shot or two.  The lesser player can easily tack his way to the green in three strokes and with careful putting make 5. 

As we putted out a few years ago I told the local dentist that I thought it was as good a finishing hole as I've played.

I'd like to here your experience with that hole. 

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I've often said, if I could only play one par 5, every day, for the rest of my life, it would be the 18th at NGLA.

I love the hole, especially from the hidden tee next to the left support for the front gate.

The terrain, positioning of the bunkers, green surrounds and green site, combined with the wind, make it my favorite.
One day I played it about 30 times, just going back to the tee after I holed out.
And, when that pin is cut in the narrowing neck in the back of the green, the hole becomes a 1/2 shot to a full shot harder.
And, this is a hole that's 502 from the red tees and about 552 from the hidden tee.

But, I have to tell you that the 18th at Old Oaks is also sensational.
Perhaps not as challenging off the tee, and perhaps not nearly as subject to sweeping winds, but, it's a wonderful hole.
One that gets harder as you get closer to the hole.

It too has ascending terrain, good bunkering within 150 of the green, a great green site and surrounds and a great putting surface.

It's a very challenging finishing hole, one where you can't limp in, you have to play your way in

[Anthony Gray]

  Pat,

  always them 'em happy.The 18th shouldn't be a yawner but the player should leave the course fealling good about the day.A triple on the last does not make the after round dinner taste as good as a birdie.TOC gets it right and servs as a good model.Easy first,difficult 16 and 17 with a nice walk to a warm clubhouse.Made for TV golf is not always good architecture.

  Anthony

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony,

Why should # 18 be a yawner, especially when 95 % of local club golf is played at match play and the 18th hole can be the deciding hole ?

Why should the 18th hole be void of challenge ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Your question rambles a bit, but in answer to your general question, I think most would be surprised at how little thought may have gone into any particular hole or difficulty.  To start with, if we take the land as it is, there may be only so much we can do as gca to make a hole easier or harder.  And if the land governs, then we might say "what the heck" to any particular rule such as easy opener, tough finisher, etc.

That said, as to par 5 finishers, some of us may be predisposed to that kind of swing hole for a finish and that thought may permeate through to the routing.  And the stroke play mentality probably pervades the thinking because none of us working today remembers tournaments or daily play at match play, any more than we have experienced the stymie.

The par 5 finish, however may be influenced by something other than tournament results.  As one owner told me early on, they buy more beer if they finish with a birdie.  From that perspective, a short 5 makes a wonderful finishing hole, as does a short 4 or maybe any hole with a punchbowl green and funnel fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Your question rambles a bit, but in answer to your general question, I think most would be surprised at how little thought may have gone into any particular hole or difficulty.  To start with, if we take the land as it is, there may be only so much we can do as gca to make a hole easier or harder.  And if the land governs, then we might say "what the heck" to any particular rule such as easy opener, tough finisher, etc.

I'm not so sure I agree about "thought".
Your response would seem to minimalize or deeply discount the importance of a good to great routing, which is at the core of individual hole designs.

That said, as to par 5 finishers, some of us may be predisposed to that kind of swing hole for a finish and that thought may permeate through to the routing.  And the stroke play mentality probably pervades the thinking because none of us working today remembers tournaments or daily play at match play, any more than we have experienced the stymie.

The par 5 finish, however may be influenced by something other than tournament results.  As one owner told me early on, they buy more beer if they finish with a birdie.  From that perspective, a short 5 makes a wonderful finishing hole, as does a short 4 or maybe any hole with a punchbowl green and funnel fairway.

I understand that no one wants to finish their round with a telephone number, but, isn't the owner dumbing down the quality of the finishing hole to cater to his perception, a hole that may stick out the most in the golfer's mind after the round.

I think of # 18 at Pac Dunes, from the regular or back tee.
Certainly that's not a pushover hole.

And # 18 at NGLA can be an eagle, birdie or a telephone number, yet, it remains distinctive.

# 18 at Sebonack is probably a concession to that owner's philosophy

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Quite the opposite.  I believe that the routing sort of sets the overall tone for how difficult a hole can inherently be, for the most part.  Sure you could add 100 bunkers to the 18th on flat ground to toughen up easier property, but you can't take away a ravine on no. 1, nor would you want to.

And yes, the owner would be deliberately "dumbing down" the 18th in my second scenario.  Or, you could call it keeping the customer satisfied.  The examples you give to make your point use some of the best courses in the world.  But, your question applies to every day public and club play, no?  At an ocean front course, I think the golfer will go back with fond memories despite struggling on the 18th.  Maybe not so much at a "regular" course.

Another way of saying that most owners build courses to make money, not provide another world top 100 and it is clearly a matter of perspective, not necessarily dumbing down, should an owner not attempt to build a top 100 course.