"Only" One Pin Position

[Peter Pallotta]

A novice's question, and one that's probably been discussed before. The "architecturally significant holes" thread brought it to mind:

in thinking about the greatness/significance of a particular hole, is the number of stratgecially-significant pin positions that the green offers a factor?

Are there great holes that, strategy-wise, are very much pin-dependant, in that perhaps only the "sunday pin" brings out its architectural features best?

I know that part of a hole's greatness is the decisions it asks for off the tee (on par 4s and 5s, perhaps independently of the pin position);  but if a hole has a number of pin positions that make much of the 2nd shot strategy moot, and only one pin position that brings all the features into play, is it less a great/significant hole?

And whatever the answer, is it an answer that's changing? What I mean is, given modern technology, is it harder than ever for a green to provide for more than one strategically-significant pin position?

Thanks
Peter  

 

   

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

In my senior year of college, after I'd been awarded my scholarship to study overseas, I traveled to NYC to get the advice of Herbert Warren Wind.  

Of all the things he said about architecture in that afternoon, the one which stuck with me was that he didn't agree with Trent Jones's emphasis on mutliple pin positions on a green.  He said the best holes were still great even when the flag was right in the middle of the green.

An architect cannot help but think about different hole locations and how they will affect play, but if a hole is only great with the flag in a certain spot, it's going to be disappointing six out of seven times you play it.

[Craig Sweet]

"And whatever the answer, is it an answer that's changing? What I mean is, given modern technology, is it harder than ever for a green to provide for more than one strategically-significant pin position?"


Peter, modern technology has nothing to do with pin locations or the lack of...I'm assuming you are talking about green speed...and green speed is member driven, not technology driven..

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Craig - thanks.

Generally, I was thinking about how pin positions affect architectural interest/significance, e.g. a redan hole, when the pin is front right; or the 10th at Riviera, when the pin is front left.  I was looking at a picture of the 7th hole at Crystal Downs, which seemed to me to have 'more' interesting pin placements, and wondering whether that's a factor in thinking about great holes.

Craig: I actually hadn't thought about green speeds in referencing technology, but there's that too. I was thinking of club/ball combinations that allow even a mediocre golfer like me to hit a 6-7 iron fairly high and long enough to make some pin positions - that were once 'tucked' and had to be approached more carefully - less strategically significant.

Peter

[Adrian_Stiff]

I agree a hole should largely stand on its own merits rather than a singular pin position. I guess if you played TOC 17 you would be dissapointed to some degree if the pin was front right.

[Ken Moum]

I agree a hole should largely stand on its own merits rather than a singular pin position. I guess if you played TOC 17 you would be dissapointed to some degree if the pin was front right.

Good point, I was also thinking about #11 on The Old, where the hole location behind Strath Bunker seems to be the only hole location used during The Open Championship.

Last July, I played it twice, and both times it was left of the bunker. The first time however, it was in a nice Scottish breeze, and so most of the shots I saw on the hole ended up 50-60 yards right of the hole, over on the #7 end of the green.

Is #11 a great hole when the cup isn't behind the bunker? I think so, but it's still a valid question.

What about some of the short par fives where only a tucked hole location is the only thing that keeps them from being automatic birdie for most pros.

And, yes, I believe that technology, in the form of balls and clubs, has rendered some holes and hole locations less interesting.

K

[JohnV]

Good point, I was also thinking about #11 on The Old, where the hole location behind Strath Bunker seems to be the only hole location used during The Open Championship.

...

What about some of the short par fives where only a tucked hole location is the only thing that keeps them from being automatic birdie for most pros.

Just because a hole is considered challenging for the pros only when the hole is located in a certain area doesn't mean that it is the only hole location where the hole is great or affect the overall "greatness" of the hole in my opinon.

The desire to force pros to play more difficult shots will often push a committee to use the hardest hole location repeatedly while ignoring other locations that might be very interesting, but not put as much stress (and therefore field separation) on the players.  I think that some of this relates to the widely held belief that strategy plays too small a role in the pro game today.  We don't/can't force strategic problems on the pros, we can only test their execution.

I see Mr. Wind's point about a hole being great even with the hole in the center of the green.  I don't think he was necessarily saying that hole locations don't matter, only that many great holes can stand out without the need to put the hole in the typical tough location.  Many center hole locations are great, but since we rarely see them on the TV, we tend to forget about them.  If one factor in measuring greatness is the ability of the hole to require different strategic decisions based that days hole location, then a hole that causes those decisions to be brought forth is arguably greater than one where the hole location doesn't matter.

To quote the first two of Tom Doak's Strategic Principles:

1.   That the hole location on a given day may change the ideal strategy for playing the hole.  
2.   That the hole location will not only suggest a "best" line of attack but also a "best" trajectory of shot.

There is nothing there to say that the center of the green can't meet those Principles.