building to a crescendo

[Tom_Doak]

My favorite courses are ones that build to a series of crescendos throughout the round and the best example I can give is Pacific Dunes.

I guess you could call the first two holes a "friendly handshake" and then it is WOW when you see the third tee.

...

But what struck me most about the routing is the view BEYOND the 3rd green when you think: "Wow, we are going to play golf on that great piece of land below!"  Well, no, you are NOT! You are making a left and coming back to that later.  I wonder how many other great courses tease you like that?

Bill:

Your description of #3 (and of seeing #13 from the green) was very much a part of my thinking when we finalized the routing plan for the course.

However, the "friendly handshake" of the first two holes was not.  I always thought the most spectacular feature of the course was that huge blowout field which you now hit over from the second tee.  I was a bit scared to use it right at the beginning of the round, but it didn't work as well for the end, so it had to fall where it does.  Anyway, we certainly did not save all the best features for last.

Incidentally, I've heard the long version of Steve Wynn's speech about Shadow Creek and "building to a crescendo".  While he did want to do so for the end [17 & 18], he also talked about how there were two or three other high points along the way ... #5, #9, #15 were the biggest of them, I think.  

At the same time, I believe they did (per his suggestion) hold back on a few of the holes and deliberately build holes that fail to pass the "every hole is great" test.  I guess they were more self-conscious about that because they were manufacturing the whole thing.  On even the best pieces of land, there is bound to be a stretch which isn't so dramatic -- say, #12 or #15 at Pacific Dunes -- and just showing restraint on those holes is enough to give the course a flow and a change of mood.  Interestingly, too, the hole most people would say is the crescendo of Pacific Dunes is #13 ... and that's the hole where we did the LEAST amount of artificial work.

[Tim Gavrich]

At TOC, I love how the course comes to its climax at the 17th green.  The fact that the 18th is a short, relatively easy par 4 makes it a perfect denouement. 

why do you feel that way Tim...just curious...thx

Paul--

The 17th at TOC seems very much the end of the golf course visually.  After the flattish, low-profile (but still wonderful) #1, you have 16 holes on that classically rumpled St. Andrews linksland.  Something important is hidden from view on every hole from 2 to 17.  Once you've taken on the hotel wall and avoided (hopefully) the Road Bunker, what remains is the 18th, which is similarly low-profile to the first.  In that way, I perceive the aesthetic rhythm of TOC to be shaped like a bell curve, rather than a steady upward slope.  This is not a knock on the 1st or 18th holes in any way; I am a big fan of them right along with the other 16 holes.

[Ben Sims]

I think ignoring the less dramatic holes is the folly of the inexperienced.  Cases(s) in point.

1) Tom Dunne spoke to me about how not to underestimate the quality of #11 at Yale based on the grandeur of 8-10.

2) Many on here have commented on not eschewing #3 and #12 at Pac Dunes in anticipation of #4 and #13.

3) Many here have written about the quality of golf leading up to the obvious 15-17 cathedral at Cypress.

This topic has been discussed many time before.  I think the trick for any architect is to give the golfer separate tastes of a meal.  When you go to a great steakhouse, you eat some of your side, you take a bite of steak, and then the crescendo happens when that great beef taste is cut by a powerful and complex Cabernet.  Example?  Ballyneal.  #5=twice baked potato, #6=Ribeye, #7=great wine and BLAMO!  Crescendo! Go to #8 tee and repeat!

[Tom Dunne]

Thanks for the mention, Ben--and it definitely speaks to this topic. What we talked about that day was the context in which the 11th at Yale appears. Studied in a vacuum, it's a decent golf hole, or something less than great. But I think its quality is amplified by its relationship to its neighbors. 8-10 at Yale is as challenging and dramatic a three-hole stretch as you'll find anywhere. And 10, which absolutely means to kick your teeth in, is also a physically demanding hole (let's assume we're carrying the bag here), with two serious hill climbs. Many golfers arrive on the 11th tee with their scorecard bruised and maybe feeling a bit of an energy drain, too. They are then presented with an attractive, downhill, easy-looking par-four. A simple drive-and-pitch. It feels like a hole where we should make par--no, need to make par. Of course, that's the danger. A pressing bogey on 11 feels like such an abject failure. By the same token, a neat little birdie or par can help the player get rolling again on the tough holes to come.

I realize what I'm talking about is as much psychology as it is nuts-and-bolts architecture, but great courses have that mental dimension, too. I always find the 11th to be an interesting little turning point in a round at Yale because it's kind of a sanity check after you've been through the crucible. Is it a great hole in the traditional sense? Maybe not, but it's (literally) one of the best "breather holes" I know of and certainly adds something valuable to the course as a whole.    

[Bill Brightly]

My favorite courses are ones that build to a series of crescendos throughout the round and the best example I can give is Pacific Dunes.

I guess you could call the first two holes a "friendly handshake" and then it is WOW when you see the third tee.

...

But what struck me most about the routing is the view BEYOND the 3rd green when you think: "Wow, we are going to play golf on that great piece of land below!"  Well, no, you are NOT! You are making a left and coming back to that later.  I wonder how many other great courses tease you like that?

Bill:

Your description of #3 (and of seeing #13 from the green) was very much a part of my thinking when we finalized the routing plan for the course.

However, the "friendly handshake" of the first two holes was not.  I always thought the most spectacular feature of the course was that huge blowout field which you now hit over from the second tee.  I was a bit scared to use it right at the beginning of the round, but it didn't work as well for the end, so it had to fall where it does.  Anyway, we certainly did not save all the best features for last.

Incidentally, I've heard the long version of Steve Wynn's speech about Shadow Creek and "building to a crescendo".  While he did want to do so for the end [17 & 18], he also talked about how there were two or three other high points along the way ... #5, #9, #15 were the biggest of them, I think.  

At the same time, I believe they did (per his suggestion) hold back on a few of the holes and deliberately build holes that fail to pass the "every hole is great" test.  I guess they were more self-conscious about that because they were manufacturing the whole thing.  On even the best pieces of land, there is bound to be a stretch which isn't so dramatic -- say, #12 or #15 at Pacific Dunes -- and just showing restraint on those holes is enough to give the course a flow and a change of mood.  Interestingly, too, the hole most people would say is the crescendo of Pacific Dunes is #13 ... and that's the hole where we did the LEAST amount of artificial work.

Tom,

I did not intend to gloss over the first two holes (I played PD three times and made more annoying bogies on these holes than I care to remember...) I made my post because I loved the "head fake" you came up with on the 3rd green. But since you mention the second hole, I'll tell you what went through my mind as a player standing on the tee: I must have missed the huge blowout field because after a quick scan of the hole, my focus was 100% on the perfectly-placed Shoe's Bunker...which I can carry with a really good drive (but came up one foot short and made a double the first time I played it..)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is the inference that architects build mediocre holes in the begining and mid section of a course and save their best work for the finishing holes ?

No, I don't think that is the inference.
Of course it is, what else could it be ?

But don't you agree that the first '3' holes aught not to be the best and then the last '3' be of a lesser quality?

Do you think an architect goes through the process of dumbing down the first 3 holes if he's found a great opener or two or three ?
Especially if he has site constraints ?

I think, assuming the routing will allow for this, the best holes should come at the end, with the average and filler holes coming early in the round.

Isn't that strictly a medal play mindset ?
I'll ask again, if the architect finds good to great opening hole/s are you advocating that he should dumb down those holes ?

That way, if compromise and mediocre holes are necessary, they are not the last thing the player remembers when he walks off the course at the end of the day.

Why would mediocre holes be necessary ?

Why not produce the best holes the site/routing allows ?

Why are you advocating for the dumbing down of the early holes for the sole purpose of having the golfer remember the finishing holes ?

Do architects intentionally route and design courses to build to a crescendo ?

When the best architects build on the best sites with few limitations, yes, they probably do built to a crescendo.
That implies that they dumb down the early holes and incrementally improve the quality of the holes as the courses moves through its playing rotation.

In everything I've read, I've never seen an architect espouse that design philosophy.

Do you think that C&C and Tom Doak use that design philosophy ?
Those early holes at Hidden Creek, Friar's Head, Pacific Dunes, Sebonack and Sand Hills are pretty impressive

Wouldn't that imply that they intentionally dumbed down the early holes ?

Not always. I suppose the first few and the last few should be the best with the average holes and filler holes coming in the middle of the round. That way, the player starts the round on a good note, capturing his attention, and then finishing on a high note to have the best possible memory of the course.

I get it, the OREO or "book end" design philosophy.

Have you ever heard or read of any architect who promotes that school of design ?

[John Moore II]

Is the inference that architects build mediocre holes in the begining and mid section of a course and save their best work for the finishing holes ?

No, I don't think that is the inference.
Of course it is, what else could it be ?

But don't you agree that the first '3' holes aught not to be the best and then the last '3' be of a lesser quality?

Do you think an architect goes through the process of dumbing down the first 3 holes if he's found a great opener or two or three ?
Especially if he has site constraints ?

I think, assuming the routing will allow for this, the best holes should come at the end, with the average and filler holes coming early in the round.

Isn't that strictly a medal play mindset ?
I'll ask again, if the architect finds good to great opening hole/s are you advocating that he should dumb down those holes ?

That way, if compromise and mediocre holes are necessary, they are not the last thing the player remembers when he walks off the course at the end of the day.

Why would mediocre holes be necessary ?

Why not produce the best holes the site/routing allows ?

Why are you advocating for the dumbing down of the early holes for the sole purpose of having the golfer remember the finishing holes ?

Do architects intentionally route and design courses to build to a crescendo ?

When the best architects build on the best sites with few limitations, yes, they probably do built to a crescendo.
That implies that they dumb down the early holes and incrementally improve the quality of the holes as the courses moves through its playing rotation.

In everything I've read, I've never seen an architect espouse that design philosophy.

Do you think that C&C and Tom Doak use that design philosophy ?
Those early holes at Hidden Creek, Friar's Head, Pacific Dunes, Sebonack and Sand Hills are pretty impressive

Wouldn't that imply that they intentionally dumbed down the early holes ?

Not always. I suppose the first few and the last few should be the best with the average holes and filler holes coming in the middle of the round. That way, the player starts the round on a good note, capturing his attention, and then finishing on a high note to have the best possible memory of the course.

I get it, the OREO or "book end" design philosophy.

Have you ever heard or read of any architect who promotes that school of design ?

And so on, and so forth.......

[Tags:]

Tags: