What characterises a great finishing hole?

[Chris Kane]

Chipoat has requested that a thread such as this be started, so I will.

On another thread, "The best seventeen hole course", there was much discussion about the last at Cypress, TOC, Prestwick etc.  Many people feel that the last at TOC is a fine hole, but not as the finisher.

The question must be asked then: what qualities does a great finishing hole possess?  Is it grandeur (Pebble Beach), length (Kapalua), or something else?  I'll often finish my round and think 'what a great finish', but I can't work out why!

What can make a hole great to finish on?

[Peter Galea]

A great finishing hole should:
"Inspire the good player, strike fear into the heart of the timid and create indecison for those protecting favorable position."

I stole this quote.

[Chris Kane]

Pete,

Can you name your source?

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I am playing with a Lido hole type concept. I am trying to create a par 5 with 4 distinct ways to play from 480 yards to 550 in length. there will be a stream running around and threough ending up against the green.

[Peter Galea]

Pete,

Can you name your source?

Sorry Chris, my memory fails me now. Perhaps Dan King can help.

[ian andrew (Guest)]

Finishing at the clubhouse.....so its a short walk to the bar!

[Matt_Ward]

Great quote.

I would just add that unpredictability is the cornerstone of a final hole -- it obviously, does not have to be long.

Clearly, the mind is tested big time to decide any issue at hand. You cannot put your game on "cruise control" and just get to the clubhouse without some element of fear to overcome.

[ChipOat]

What a great thread - thanks!

First, it strikes me that the "return to the clubhouse" requirement is, more often than not, a handicap.  What if the terrain approaching the clubhouse is totally ordinary?  Or what if the opportunity to build truly great 14th-17th holes leaves nothing left over for the architect to work with?
 
I favor really strong par 4's as finishing holes that demand a long iron from the normal good amateur and at least a 4 or 5 iron from the very longest (mortal) hitters.  I also like the 2nd shot to require a carry to, at least, the front of the green - a "heroic" shot, if you will.  Therefore, hazards that have to be carried are OK by me.  Also, the tee shot needs to be long and reasonably straight to set up the approach.  In short, 2 darn good shots by a good player are required to reach and hold the green - playing safe for par just isn't an option.  Also, making bogey after a poor shot should be difficult.  I acknowledge that, since birdies are scarce, my ideal 18th may not be the most exciting hole if David Toms is chasing Tiger and needs 1 more birdie to tie.  Can't have everything, I guess.

My favorite is Merion, even though only the drive has to be "heroic" and carry a hazard.  The second shot is unlikely to run up the slope in front of the green, though, so a full 195-205 (slightly uphill) carry is required to reach the putting surface.  I'm not sure of my second favorite although TPC Sawgrass is certainly in the running.  Southern Hills also made an impression although it's been a while since I've played it.  Can anybody opine on whether Carnoustie would fit the profile?  Winged Foot West would be another possibility although that hole's just long and hard without much heroism required - to me, at least.  I've never played Medinah but I'll bet it's similar.

I think #18 at Pine Valley is a wonderful hole but I've seen many mid irons, and even a couple short irons, played there in recent years.  Is it still tough enough after a good drive these days?  It certainly filled the bill through the 60's, at least.  Hitting 2 and 3 irons across that water and those bunkers - wow!

I'm not a fan of even the best par 5's - playing safe for par is just too easy.  Does that mean that Pebble #18, as great a strategic hole as it is, doesn't fit my criteria?  I'm afraid so.


Finally, even really great par 3's aren't my favorite although every par 3 18th I've ever played was quite good - I guess they have to be to get away with it.  I know there was a thread in the last couple of months on this so I'll leave it alone here.

[redanman (Guest)]

chipper, I agree!

a non par 5 is a good start!

I can't remember the name of the course in Perth played for the Johnie Walker, but I sure liked the looks of that #18. Retief surely proved Saturday that it rewards great golf. Anyone else like the hole?  I thought the tee shot looked great from TV and the green worked well with its contours for the shape of the hole and the shot required.  Also, 480+ uphill will even satisfy Mr Matt Ward!

[ChipOat]

I haven't played either Carnoustie or Atlanta Athletic Club (the Jerry Pate/David Toms hole) but both #18's look like they fit my bill.

Doral Blue #18 also looks excellent - drive near the water and then cross it to reach the green.

Any comments?

[TEPaul]

I don't agree that a great finishing hole has to be some ball-buster requiring a big long accurate drive and a long second shot with a forced carry to the green or whatever and immediate disaster all around.

I completely agree with Matt Ward--unpredictability is best and that can be a hole that's long, medium or short!

One of the most exciting finishing holes in my recollection was the 18th at Pittsburgh Field club in some state amateurs. About a 180 yard straight uphill par 3, off the world left and impossible up and down right! That one got everyone's  attention!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Chip

Carnoustie 18 is a very hard hole (particularly when surrounded by cabbage as in 1999), but not particularly interesting--at least compared to the great stuff that precedes it, particularly 14-17.

Rich

[Tim_Weiman]

Chipoat:

I understand what you like in a finishing hole.  You've made that very clear.

What I'm not clear about is why you favor a very difficult hole over something more strategic.

Imagine two players coming to #18 tied.  Isn't it more fun to watch them sort out HOW they want to play the final hole?

[SPDB]

Chip - an interesting study in what you said about holes returning to the clubhouse being handicapped if the land is ordinary would be The Country Club.

This hole is about as flat a hole as one could imagine, yet I don't believe the hole is handicapped in any way. The green is tiny and severely canted, and has a ferocious cross bunker that guards the front. Although the hole is flat, walking up the fairway, I can't help but be taken away by the sweep of the land.

[RJ_Daley]

To define favorite finishing hole characteristics, I think one first has to decide if they like the general orientation of an uphill, downhill, or level terrain aspect.  If one has a varied property in elevation change, then one has the task to site the clubhouse with consideration to these intial questions - to finish up, down, or even.  

For the uphill variety, I favor a generally straight away orientation but with some mid fairway decision forcing features.  Perhaps a mid-fairway or diagonal bunker splitting the fairway to offer a short or long drive and with favor to left or right, with a second shot continuing uphill to a well guarded green with cop bunkers or deceptive bunkering out front to force shot making decisions depending on the side to come in from.  

For the down hill variety, I like the drives into a saddle or over a bit of blind ridge to a turbo boost down ramp on one side of fairway or a higher plateau if you land on the high side of FW.  Then a second shot across a hazard from one side and a longer easier route from the other, Like Kapalua.

If level terrain, I like the cape like or bite off characteristic like 18 TPC Sawgrass for a par 4.  If it must be a par 5, Pebbles model ain't too bad.

I had this philosophical discussion with a friend who designs courses and whom I admire.  He favored the downhill orientation as a general principle, and I favor the uphill variety.  I like to rise to a difficult finish!  

[ChipOat]

Tim Weiman:

I don't know why I like "difficult" par 4's for a finisher - the same reason I prefer redheads, I guess.  Who knows?  Perhaps because I've always admired Merion and Pine Valley so much.

As Merion proves on #'s 5 and 18, a hard hole can also be strategic - the strategic part is usually overshadowed by the difficulty factor, though.

Cheers,
CO

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick Daley:

How about downhill and uphill on the same hole?

I think that describes #18 at Oakmont, downhill for the tee shot and uphill on the approach.

Doesn't #18 at Crystal Downs play that way as well?


Chipoat:

It okay to just prefer redheads!

[RJ_Daley]

Tim,

looking back on that Michigan trip, I rather liked the finishing hole at Arcadia Bluffs more than CD as an example of one of those risers.  I hope that doesn't get me put on probation here in the tree house. :-/  If I hadn't already, I'll send you some pics through e-mail to demonstrate my point.  I wish I could post them here.

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick Daley:

I liked the finish at Arcadia very much even though John McMillan hit a better 4 iron approach than I did!

It was getting kind of dark when we played.  Isn't the tee shot kind of downhill?

[John_McMillan]

Tim -

I remember that 4-iron.  

We had two threesomes playing Arcadia Bluffs, and following a slower group, came to the last couple holes racing the setting sun.  We played the last 2 holes as a six-some to try to get through the 18'th more quickly. My drive on 18 was not something conducive to quick play of the hole - so I abandoned that ball and dropped one by your drive, so we both played the same shot into 18.  The sun was setting, and vision dim, so I was unsure of my club and distance.  Since you had already played a pretty good shot to the green, I asked what you played, and decided that 4-iron was a pretty good shot to play there.  Fortunately, having seen the shot demonstrated, I was able to play a pretty good one - which ended a couple feet inside yours.  

Since I abandoned a couple rules of golf but still had a fun time, maybe that's a feature of good closing holes - they're more inducive to creating memorable shots than memorable scores.

[Brian Phillips]

I have opinion here that many of you may disagree with:

The last hole should give the opportunity to a golfer to attack the hole but with a risk of failing will result in a loss of the hole or a loss of the tournament.
 
I also think that it is important what the player had to deal with on the 17th.  If you take two examples of two totally different courses TOC and TPC they both have two very difficult but important 2nd to last finishing holes.

One is a Par 3 and the other is a Par 4.  Both are very difficult for a player who is leading a tournament by one or two shots.  On both holes any player leading a tournament by one or is one up would love to walk away with par

Well let's presume you have now played par on the 17th and your fellow competitor has also played a par which means you are still one up or leading by one...

It's your honour.. now what do you do at the TOC 18th..Do you try to drive the green, do you blast it left into safety, do you hit an easy drive to ensure you are playing first into the green...the options are endless.

OK you are both now in the fairway and it is your honour again...what do you do...bump and run...pitch and spin...fly short and hope to run up the valley of sin...?

I will give you three examples of what has happenend in different tournaments..

Nick Faldo hit a bump and run at the 1990 British Open that he won on one of the rounds and holed the shot.  He says that was one of the most important shots of his career.

Doug Sanders and Jack played the hole totally differently the year Doug threw it away.  Jack drove to the back of the green, in fact his ball ran up the back of the mounding and rolled back again wheras Sanders played his approach slightly long and 3 putted..

Paul Lawrie played a near perfect pitch to the green last year but the balled rolled back into the valley of sin, luckily for him he holed an awesome putt.

As did Rocca the year Daly won.

So I think that the 18th at TOC is a perfect finishing hole not just because of the strategy but also because of what the player has just had to go through on the 17th..

If you have the balls on those holes like Seve did when he won there you get rewarded.  Seve has said the shot to the 17th was the best of his life.

So I think it is important that the finishing hole of a golf course must complement the 2nd to last hole as well.

Brian.

[BillV]

Especially after listening for a few minutes to the AT&T yesterday with the ramblings of a past his prime KenVenturi wanting to go ride in the blimp, the only thing required of an 18th hole is that it is solid and not the weakest or least interesting hole on the course.  18 at Plainfield always comes up as a weak 18th hole because it is not 450 yards.  My good friend Matt Ward says Lehigh's 445 yard 18th hole needs 20-30 more yards, c o 's lament that Pine Valley's 18th now only a short iron (I did hit 9-iron the last time)- are any of these diminishing to the course as a whole? Gambling par 5's are such a bore, eliminating a certain percentage of players right off the mark (Maybe par 5's as a concept ought to be eliminated?).

Do we need motor fed babbling brooks, waterfalls, specimen trees, Stillwater Cove?

No.  Those holes I mentioned are all solid.  solid, IMHO, that's all an 18th needs to be.

[TEPaul]

I don't even know that "solid" needs to be a requirement for a finishing hole to be great although I have no idea what the definition of "solid" is!

Just look carefully at Brian Phillips example of TOC above. Does TOC's finishing hole need #17 to be what it is and to do what it does and clearly has done in innumerable instances and examples (some good ones cited by Brian)? Maybe, maybe not!

#17 probably helps #18 as a finishing hole but I maintain it can even stand on its own as a very good finishing hole or even a great one!

But how could that be if it's so short, so open and so apparently birdieable?

Because really good golf holes are all about expectations, about temptations and about possibilities and about the various ways they can be achieved and also the various ways they can come to ruin! And the more of those things the better it's going to be--as any hole and certainly as a finishing hole.

Just look at what #18 TOC does to a player--look at the enormous possibilities and the overt temptations! Do most players given various situations just reach for their driver on that hole or even their iron? Hell no! There are a large number of extremely interesting possibilities standing right on the tee box that the likes of Merion's, Pine Valley's and Lehigh's #18s do not offer. Those last three and many like them do offer the golfer very much a unilateral high demand situation--and there is much to be said for that too, I'm sure!

But look again at #18 TOC, it doesn't really offer that kind of demand in any "par" context, just a ton of temptations and possibilities to achieve all kinds of unbelievable outcomes. And it does it with basically the simplest of all architectural arrangements! OB and danger right and a big and dramatic swale--and that's about it!! How good is that?! And the hole is extremely variable in just the pin position setup! Put that pin up close to the Valley of sin and you have about all the temptation, all the angst and all the options you would ever need for almost any closing situation! You could birdie it with tee choice and execution, you could even eagle it! You could par it with conservatism or birdie it too but you could also bogie it in a heartbeat and how well do even the Tour pros know that, particularly when the pin is in the stated position which it generally is on hole #72!?

This mundane, short apparently easy looking hole offers the spectrum of temptations and possibilities with two extremely simple but highly effective architectural offerings and has proven it well, over and over again, as Brian says! To me that may or may not be defined as "solid", whatever that really means, but what it does mean to me is it has all the ingredients to be characterized as a great finishing hole anyway!

[Matt_Ward]

BillV:

My good friend appreciate your post.

My comments on the 18th at Lehigh are this. Flynn originally built that hole to make sure players would hit a long iron or even a wood approach. That does not happen in today's game with top players. The hole is still a good closer (solid is the word you used) as is -- no doubt. I just would like to see it be even better for the highly skilled player. Bill, the 18th usually plays downwind because of the SW wind. I would just like to see top players get a little nervous when they come to the end of the round.

In my opinion, I believe since there is room behind the existing tee you can add about 30 yards and bring back the demands Flynn originally envisioned. Clearly, the new pad tee would be only used for big time club events and outside tournaments. The average player will look at the tee but quickly hustle to the playing area they normally play from. Lehigh is a wonderful layout and any fan of architecture must play, but having two meaty par-4's of length is something that's missing in my humble opinion. (I would also lenghten #1 about 20 yards so that wind conditions would force you to play either the 1st or 18th into the wind).

As a comparable example I can recall the efforts made at Shinnecock to the 18th were fashioned in the same manner.

The 18th at Plainfield is a good closer, but Ross obviously positioned the hole as the original 16th. Yes, the green is quite demanding and if you land too far from the pin you will three-putt more time than not. I just see it being a bit anti-climatic given the quality of holes that preceded it. It's still a good hole.

One last note -- I don't believe you need a hole of brutal length to be your closer. As I said earlier just give me a hole where "unpredictability" is center stage.