How a hole plays should be self-evident (?)

[John Kavanaugh]

Jim,

I will be happy to name a hole if you tell me who is doing the explaining to whomb.

[Jeff Taylor]

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.

[JESII]

Jim,

I will be happy to name a hole if you tell me who is doing the explaining to whomb.

Thanks John.

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[JESII]

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 Kavanaugh]

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. 

[Sean Leary]

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"?

[Adam Clayman]

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. 

[Matthew Petersen]

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.

[Bill_McBride]

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.

[JESII]

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.

[JESII]

"How to play a hole" and "how to score on a hole" are two different things, right?

[John Kavanaugh]

"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.

[Adam Clayman]

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.

[Mike Hendren]

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

[Mike Hendren]

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

[Sean_A]

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

[JESII]

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?

[Adam Clayman]

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.

[john_stiles]

If it is intended as it seems,  you probably won't like (or rate lower) many of the best links.

[Adam Clayman]

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.

[Tim Bert]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.  

[john_stiles]

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.

[Tim Bert]

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!