Easthampton / Bill Coore's comments

[brad_miller]

thanks Bill, good luck, looks like you will get it done. Agree on Golf vs GD, one of my best buddies is a SFGC member Steve McLin, probably after your time.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

What you took so many words to try to explain--what happens when a hole changes a par number we all know about on here! It's been discussed on here a bunch of times.

For God sakes don't try to claim at this point that anything actual or valid in an architectural sense happens to a golf hole when the par number is changed!

It's the biggest joke in architecture that some golfers actually look at holes differently, and actually PLAY them differently, simply because nothing more than the par number changes!

Of course it's a perception change when the par changes but if that's absolutely all that changes do you really believe a thinking golfer should play that hole differently?

I believe that many do but it only proves how susceptible they are to a trick--a perception ploy in other words! I don't consider people like that particularly savy golfers or much understanding of the fundamentals of architecture!

Do you think it really makes any difference to a touring pro what the par of a hole is? Of course not! They try to play any hole in the fewest strokes possible considering the risks and if the risks don't change why would they really consider the par number?

I think it's a great question on Brad's part if your perception of the quality of a course and consequently its rating or ranking number would change if some par numbers only changed!

Anyone who looks at things like hole pars, total par or total card yardage without anything else changing and looks at the course differently because of only a number change isn't looking close enough at the architecture of a course, in my opinion!

[JakaB]

Tom,

Pro's don't care about the line of charm either but that makes it no less delicious than a stated par number to us gluttons for punishment.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

With all due respect -- you play the course against OLD MAN PAR! That's what Bobby Jones used to say. You don't play against people -- your primary thrust is the COURSE and PAR is attached to that.

Yes, you take into consideration tactics such as what you desribed with Tiger and the 17th hole at TOC. I don't doubt that weather and wind conditions may render meaningless the par # and play adjusts accordingly. This happens plenty of times during the BO and other such events.

I mentioned previous examples and the mindset in approaching a hole changes when you affix a certain par for that hole. Are you going to say your tactics will not be different if a hole is a par-4 rather than a par-5? If that's the case why have any par listed at all -- just list your total score and go from there. When someone comes to play the 16th at Cypress Point all you would say is "here is the hole" and go from there. If that's how you feel -- so be it. Par to me is a referense point -- it obviously is not an absolute but it does have an effect on overall perceptions of how a course plays.

TEPaul:

I agree it's clearly a perception situation, but that perception ploy has influenced a ton of people over the course of time.

Look, if I played WF / West and the 9th and 16th are par-5's I don't think the course is nearly as difficult when par is reduced to 70 and they both play as 4-par's. It's a score consideration, yes, not an architectural one in the purest sense of the word. I can see how you can divorce those other elements and look at pure architecture, but the game involves the playing of shots and if you say "par" is "x" then how I play will be shaped by that if score matters to me. To you it may not. Fair enough. I did say it would have an impact on how I would assess a golf course -- again, I used the two-word phrase "slight modification" if at all.

Last point Tom -- I'll have you know, I do in fact look at the architecture quite closely and my original point was that golf courses do need diversity of holes in order to bring the full golfing experience to the forefront. I don't believe East Hampton achieves that with the absence of long par-4's, although the layout is indeed well crafted by the duo of C & C. That is why I marked the course down for a 6.5 Doak scale rating. Hope that further explanation helps.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Matt,

I have a question about a half point on the Doak scale. You said that a 6 was worth playing if you were in the neighborhood and a 7 was worth driving 100 miles to play. Does that mean that Easthampton at 6.5 is worth driving 50 miles to play?

Hope this helps...

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt;

That's a good point Jeff raises.  

Since I'm in Philly, is it worth the 100+ mile trip to see and play in and of itself, or would I have to "couple" it with something equally worthwhile or better for you to recommend I go there.

Of course, knowing each other as we do, we've probably both made 100+ mile trips to play courses that were "3"'s!  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The 17th at St.Andrews has been a par-5 much of its life and was considered by many the greatest par-5 in golf. I can't imagine that the 13th at ANGC would be any less great as a par-4. Aren't there a couple of great par-4.5's at Royal Melbourne?

The decisions are still enthralling no matter the par designation. I think the over emphasis on the scorecard is an American tendency and not necessarily in the best interest of architectural thought.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

I don't disagree with your statement and that of Tom Paul's. Scoring is clearly something Americans fancy and when many people play watch the comments of those individuals at the 19th hole when they discuss their day's play. If someone makes a "par" at a very challenging hole they will often beam with pride to their golfing cronies by saying, "I parred that baby today."

Mike, Jeff, et al:

I was really torn between the numbers as defined by Tom Doak and believe the course fits somewhere in between.

Anyone who knows me, will verify that I have driven to plenty of places that are much further away than East Hampton -- I believe Mike and I have probably worn down more tires than many truckers!

Mike's question is a good one -- would I play it by itself or would I need to couple it? I think for those not used to driving a heavy dose of mileage I would say it falls right in between a yes and a no. I'm not trying to dodge the issue, but the element of diversity keeps that from being a clear yes. I credit C&C for their design philosophy because the course clearly makes a statement on how to temper the power & aggressive play you see being catered to with so many designs today. The greens at Easthampton will clearly make you cry if you sail too many balls wide of their intended targets -- anyone with Roberto Duran hands will say no mas many times over.  

For that reason the course does offer a compelling reason for a singular day trip but for those wanting to see something in the vein of SH or National that's just not going to be the case. But given the standard of east end golf on the Island Easthampton certainly carries its own weight quite well and is an excellent example on how to build a quality course on such cramp acreage.

Geeeze -- I hope I tap danced well on that one.

[Tom Doak]

I've enjoyed the discussion of my rating system from afar.  I have walked East Hampton Golf Club and my rating would probably be quite similar to Matt's ... but I'm not about to publish it right now.

Also enjoyed the discussion of par.  It reminded me of a discussion I had years ago with Rees Jones himself, when I was helping GOLF with a ranking of the top 100 golf holes in America (1986).  Before asking all my contacts for their nominations of golf holes, I wrote a short list of holes that would definitely be on the ballot, so that not everyone would feel obliged to nominate the 13th at Augusta.

Anyway, one of the holes I "exempted" was the 18th at Oakland Hills (South), and Rees wrote in on his nomination sheet to ask if I meant that as a par-5 or as a par-4?  We discussed it at length and he believed that the hole was quite different in context ... he didn't think it was a fair par-4 because the green was so small.  And I didn't see the difference.

So, let me know if you come to a conclusion on this ... I'd love to e-mail Rees and tell him I was right!

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I see your arguments, and I hear you, about how hole par numbers influence golfers even on holes that have their par numbers changed without a single blade of grass on that hole changing and I do not at all deny that many many golfers, certainly even good ones are sometimes influenced by it!

But can you at least (despite the prevalence of golfers that might think that way) see the inherent ridiculousness of that perception!

I too might fall into that trap but the idea of playing any golf hole is to play it in the fewest possible strokes always considering the risks that might make you do otherwise!! That's the way golf should be played and by the best of them actually IS played! So again, to have an altered number on a hole influence how to play the hole makes no inherent sense!

Clearly, clearly, this would not be true of most holes but it certainly is with a few we have talked about, ie, the Road hole, ANGC #13 etc, etc.

It is also the very reason that I believe Tiger Woods uncharacteristically exploded when asked about the par change on Pebble's #2 for the Open. He simply said; "Why do that? Do you really think that will make me play the hole any differently? Of course it won't!"

That very much got my attention because with that number changed that way he was only apparently thinking of how that might affect perception as to the tournament score being "how much under par" and things like that obviously occur to him! But play the hole differently to him? No way! And he said as much in no uncertain terms!

If you feel that Easthampton doesn't have enough good holes in the long par 4 category (and you have decent length which you do) you should simply view the 17th at Easthampton as a tough par 4 because that is exactly what it is!

The fact that Coore and Crenshaw simply called that hole a par 5 for the good golfer is unquestionably one of the cleverest ploys in par skewing perception I've ever seen and it was completely intentional on their part to do that and for that very single reason!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

I hear you loud and clear and see your conclusion. Just follow me on this ...

Let me say right up front that since golf is the ultimate MIND and since "score" is so tied up with how many Americans play the game the essence of what should be "scored" on a particular hole can sometimes outweigh the sheer logical nature of your argument.

Clearly, the hole is THE SAME HOLE. But, add in the equation of what someone should "score" and then all of a sudden you find that smooth backswing becomes rushed as the player seeks to propel further down the fairway and simply succeeds at scaring the birds in the adjoining trees!

How do I know -- just watch the world's best when holes are changed from a mediocre par-5 into a strong par-4? The pros don't view the hole in the former sense they look upon the latter and clearly it does have an effect on what they ultimately "score."

Your statement about Tiger only proves why he is the best player in the game -- he does his own thing which is to score low on every hole no matter what the "par" is.

Regarding the changing of par designations for the 17th at East Hampton -- I would disagree. Not with your premise that a medium length par-5 can be reduced to a par-4 but one must consider the respective hole in question. The green designed for that hole really is not made to handle the type of long shot one 'WOULD have to play if the hole was designed as a par-4. As a par-5 you the player can take it upon himself to force the issue and try to squeeze in the second to that very narrow target. If you miss you still have your 3rd to get on the green in the regulation stroke.

Tom, I do like East Hampton but the same issue that rests with that course rests with others I have seen such as Lehigh. Clearly, they are wonderful designs but the issue of diversity is limited as the long par-4 is not a major factor -- if at all. Ditto that for Somerset Hills and a few others I can mention.

I credit C&C for going the route of using demanding green contours to really highlight precision over raw power. Too much of modern design caves into the belief that the only way to handle distance is apply even more length. You don't fight fire with more fire. Try H20!

As I said at the outset golf is the ultimate mind game. Players who fall victim to the perception of "par" will clearly fall prey to making even more mistakes because of the pressure to conform to what "par" is.

But, as I said before -- if WF / West is thought of a as a par-70 instead of par-72 it does have an influence on how I would assess the course. I said before it's possible that a "slight modification" would occur.

Tom, I hear what you are saying but to simply divorce par from architecture is understandable from the purist's point of view. However, I think it conveniently ignores the human element that enters into the game because people will view what is "par" for the hole and ultimately "par" for the course. That perception, although you find it inane, is part and parcel of the game. That is how people measure their success or failure. How a hole is designed and how it is supposed to be played is influenced by the par designation that is applied.

Hope this helps ...

P.S. I'm glad we see each other's point although we are on different sides of the point. Touche.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

This exchange between us on things like par skewing, changing a number on a hole without doing anything to a hole, the "par mentality" of golfers (the card and pencil mentality), the mentality of GIR (as GIR supposedly relates to par and in the minds of some and the constructs of architecture and GIR too), the lengths of holes as they may fall into a "cusp"  between the "formularized" lengths of "par" determination etc, etc, is pretty funny really!

First of all, both of us appear to be acting a bit too didactic with one another and I'm sure neither one of us needs to do that!

I'm sure I don't really need to explain to you how clever architects are occasionally prone to playing "mind games" in their architecture with the "par mentality" or "card and pencil" set!

And I'm also sure you don't need to explain to me how various levels of golfers, particularly good ones prone to the "card and pencil" mentality think about it!

I know how many of them think about it. I've played scratch tournament golf for years, officiated at that level for years, talked about this type of thing with good players for years etc--I know the various ways they think about it! The same for the pro level too! So you really don't need to explain these things to me and punctuate them with "hope this helps" and a smiley face!

And agreeing or disagreeing about these things and the effects they SHOULD have on the minds and the games and game plans of golfers is really not necessary either, although I would think that is the ultimate hope of this type of architectural discussion. At the very least, I would hope that we can see that what each other says has some merit in an architectural context and how players play that architecture and how they MAY think about it!

So probably the best way to discuss this type of thing is from the perspective of the architect and what he's trying to do in this particular vein (playing mind games with the card and pencil set) and to try to reach a conclusion or even consensus on whether he's doing it successfully!

In that regard I should point you to your paragraph where you say; "Regarding the par designation of the 17th hole at Easthampton--I would disagree."

I know you would Matt! And I also see that you go on to say that if that hole's par was dropped to a 4 then the player WOULD (as you said) feel more constrained to go for that green in two (obviously only because he thinks he SHOULD for another GIR and "par" at that lower number)!!

I think we both agree on that because we both recognize the "par mentality" of various players. But the thing you should answer soon is do you really believe that SHOULD be true too??

That's the point here Matt! If the par on Easthampton's #17 was dropped to a 4 and consequently that constrained you to think you SHOULD go for that green in two vs if it was "called" a par 5, then frankly you too are part of the "par mentality" and "card and pencil" set that C&C are trying to play mind games with on this hole.

And if you ask me they have been damned successful at it on this hole with you too!

You tell me that we have to look at the hole in question! We sure do!

You tell me that #17's green is too small to be a par 4 of that length! Oh really? Why is that Matt? Probably because you think a par 4 of 485 that's a mid-body dogleg right must have an accomodating green large enough for a long iron or wood!

Who says that Matt? Players do who think that architecture should be formularized into various configurations to "accomodate" a series of standardized shots and shot choices of particular players, in this case good ones!

Coore & Crenshaw are well aware of that and are simply playing "mind games" with that mental set and doing it damn successfully, in my opinion by making the green small on this 485 yarder with a very narrow green!

For the same price of coffee they could have called the hole a par 4 (it's within that "par" length formula) but they recognize that the hole would be criticized as designed poorly (too small a green for card and pencil long par 4 formularized GIR thinkng)! If the hole was called a par 4 tomorrow, I have little doubt you would criticize the architecture of it because the green was too small! To me that thinking is  "formularizing" architecture!

So a much better way to go is to just call it a par 5 and put the decision of what to do from exactly the same "reachable" spot in two right between the players ears!

They're the first to recognize doing it that way (par 5) creates much more of a quandry in that players mind pitting the temptation of going at that green in two (because he knows he has the length to make it) with the fact that he knows the hole is "called" a par 5 and thereby tricking him into thinking he really doesn't have to go for it for that reason alone.

That temptation (knowing he can go and reach it) combined with that par mentality realization (that he THINKS he really doesn't have to) is intended to create frustration in the mind of that card and pencil good player on that very shot! And that shot is supposed to be the point and essence of that hole! And I believe the hole does that beautifully!

That is exactly what the hole is designed to accomplish, period!

So you don't really need to tell me what players think and don't think Matt, just tell me whether you think that hole accomplishes what Coore and Crenshaw intended it to or not!

Basically that's the entire point of the architecture of it and the par number of it too!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Thank you for your dissertation on how long you have been involved with the game. To be honest with you -- I just got started a few years ago! I'm glad you have enlightened me out of my darkness.

(Your question?) "So you don't really need to tell me what players think and don't think Matt, just tell me whether you think that hole accomplishes what Coore and Crenshaw intended it to or not!"

To answer your question --

the 17th at Easthampton when played at or near 500 yards as a par-5 (championship tee distance) accomplished what C&C intended. Played as a par-4 for that distance, or reduced as you say through the "pencil," the hole introduces, in my opinion, an unfairness because of the dimensions of the putting surface.

That's my answer.

P.S. The issue of long par-4's could have been brought into the mixture at Easthampton -- although the 1st is a decent opening short par-5 -- the green could have been modified and the hole played as a 450-yard opener, but since the nature of the club is to be member friendly I can see how the existing hole blends well for both the low and high handicapper. I still hold to my diversity argument on the overall merits of East Hampton and believe a 6.5 on the Doak scale is a fair grade.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Well then, in sum, that's probably exactly why Coore and Crenshaw decided to call #17 at par 5, because people such as yourself are likely to view the same hole (as a par 4) as in some way "unfair" despite the fact that as the same hole, only labeled a par 4, they WOULD (according to you) be inclined to go for it much more often!

In the mentality of card and pencil player the idea of "unfair" generally evokes the idea of some unusual RISK, but I suppose that (risk) doesn't occur to those players when they go for that hole more often when called a par 4 instead of a par 5!

That doesn't really seem very logical to me but apparently it  does to you! And I agree with you completely, apparently it does to a good number of players!

But frankly, I'm glad that you and those players feel that way, because if you didn't, that hole as a par 5 would not work half as well as Coore and Crenshaw intended it to!

The brilliance of their concept is that they know that there are plenty of players out there that feel that way--they're convinced of it--or otherwise I doubt they would have done such a concept!

Also, I'm sorry you seem to be defensive and sarcastic about "my dissertation of how long I've been involved in the game."

But I do understand why you feel that way about what I said as it's somewhat analagous to how I feel about you constantly reminding this website about how many golf courses you play as a rater or whatever and the implication that others should have to do the same to have a valid opinion on the things you sometimes say about architecture!

But the both of us should probably just try harder not to be at all defensive about these kinds of things!

I hope that helps.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Point taken.

Just remember this -- I don't boast about the courses I've played because my sampling is likely to be small when compared to others. What irks me is when people truly believe (mistakenly I might add) that they have such important analysis / commentary to make SIMPLY from aerial and or photo evidence or third hand accounts.

Field work (going there and playing / walking the site) trumps all. How about people the time to see the sites in question? Are they upset that someone might have done the necessray leg work? I used this analogy before Tom -- you don't know the quality of the food until you eat it. Just looking at the plate doesn't cut it.

And, to be totally frank I get plenty of off-line messages from regulars on GCA who are quite weary of all the pontifications from people who are intellecutally lazy. It does no service to themselves. And, I believe it runs counter to  the spirit of what this Website is supposed to be about -- the furthering of real dialogue from first hand experiences. I learn from the actual experiences of others.

However, to borrow Pat's expression -- I could be wrong. Thanks for your reply. One last thing -- what are your favorite holes at East Hampton and why?

[TEPaul]

Matt:

We're all well aware of your opinon on these things, I'm sure!

I would never tell you that I think you're wrong in your opinion, only that that's your opinion and not all others!

As for the holes of Easthampton, I'd be more than happy to tell you what I think of them!

And I have played the golf course, but what I know about it and feel about it is an understanding, I believe, that came as a result of far more than playing the golf course, I can assure you of that!

And, by the way, Matt, I truly believe that some or most of this arguing and certainly the defensiveness on these threads is the result of contributors trying to tell or imply to others that basically--"I know more about architecture and things related to it than you do"!

I'm very sorry it's that way or seems that way! We all probably get into that or appear to! I hope it can stop or be minimized!

There's only good things to expect from education on this subject of golf architecture and there's no good reason for anyone to gloat over it!

[Garland Bayley]

bump