Into the wind: build 'em long, or build 'em short?

« **on:** July 08, 2003, 11:24:38 AM »

I was playing with Peter Pittock at Machrihanish this morning, and he commented that when he played the course yesterday, he figured he'd seen it in the wrong wind: the shortish holes on the front nine were mostly downwind, and the longer holes on the back nine were into the wind. When I told him that in my experience this was the prevailing wind, he seemed a little bit puzzled.

In a way, I can see his point - holes 14 and 16 in particular are real brutes into the wind, and in my opinion the 12th actually plays easier into the wind (allowing you to stop an approach more quickly on its fall-away green). On the other hand, the short holes (particularly 4, 6 and 9, although the fourth green isn't very receptive downwind) can play a bit on the easy side when the wind isn't in your face or across. In any event, in my experience the front nine plays about two shots easier than the back nine.

Now then: is the phenomenon I describe above - having nines of different difficulty, or sets of holes which use the wind in a contraflow sort of way (if you follow me) - a bad thing, neutral or possibly even a good thing? I don't know...as a rule of thumb it seems to be a good thing, where possible, to route long holes with the prevailing wind and vice versa. But a hypothetical course with six 350-yard par 4s into the wind and six 450-yard par 4s with the wind might play like it had 12 400-yard par 4s, which doesn't quite seem right to me. Obviously that's a bit of a bogus example; picking out the best holes from the available land seems like the best thing to do in any given situation, however the wind blows, and yet surely architects given a virtual blank slate (like Fazio at Shadow Creek, or Coore/Crenshaw at Sand Hills) will have taken the prevailing wind conditions into account when deciding what holes to build where. I guess I'm sorta wondering how much the wind gets taken into account when building a golf course, both at the general level (re: rules of thumb about when to build 'em long or short) and at the specific level (i.e. when considering the routing of individual holes). Anyone with any thoughts on this subject?

Cheers,
Darren

« **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2003, 12:04:02 PM »

Darren,

I once asked Tom Fazio if he took prevailing wind into account when designing holes and he quietly said he really didn't. If I recall correctly, he briefly followed up by saying too many other things determined the routing.

« **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2003, 12:06:58 PM »

Darren,
I may be mistaken, but I think that Pete Dye, and probably others tend to build the long par 4 brutes into the prevailing wind and the shortish par 4s with the wind if they have the option. Keeps long hole long, and makes the short hole short. Somewhat counterintuitive, but it makes sense to me.

Case in point: the short (drivable with less than a driver if the wind is right) par 4 7th at Sand Hills plays downwind. Try holding that crowned masterpiece of a green with a less than full SW downwind if you decide to lay-up. #10 is 470yd+ par 4 from the tips that played right into the teeth of a 2-3 club gale the same day.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

« **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2003, 12:23:02 PM »

Darren- It has been my experience that the wind is your friend. Golfing in it is as spiritual as it gets, to me. There are a number of reasons I feel this way, but I think the biggest reason I love it is because it makes me swing better. So, any attention to it in the design process, is in MO, another dosage of the TLC needed to create something great.

At Shadow Creek, The holes were routed in a north-south flow, so noone would have that pesky bitch of a glowball in their face, morning or afters.

One of the coolest openers in da world is CPC, and in January around 7:30 a.m. the sun is right in your face. It really is no big deal since the opening shot is of a severely sight disadvantaged one. (Blind like duck).

Disclaimer: I also think hitting directly into the sun helps keep my head down (better swing) and at night, too. Why bother looking up?

consider the source.

« **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2003, 04:07:52 PM »

I favor long par 4's into the wind, and short ones down wind. Otherwise, despite scorecard variety, it can be driver, six iron all day, with similar effective lengths.

One of the modern "formulas" is to follow a long 4 into the wind with a short five downwind, so the astute thinkers will mentally reverse pars in planning course management. I heard that from several pros, as a neat idea.

« **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2003, 05:01:37 PM »

A very good design feature I've seen is long par 4s facing in opposite directions:

T __________ [ G ] [ G ] ___________ T

Example 1 is two 450 yard+ par 4s at hidden gem Grandote GC in obscure La Veta, CO (Weiskopf/Morrish). #5 generally plays directly downwind, #17 generally plays directly into the wind. Example 2 is holes #4 and #13 at Pacific Dunes, which play into/with or with/into the wind depending on the season. We had a discussion here about the PacDunes winds awhile ago, and I believe Tom Doak said he considered them in his design.

« **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2003, 08:14:03 PM »

Some great short par 4s would lose some of their teeth if played into the prevailing wind. A lot of these holes put a premium on the second shot. If distance control and spin are not easy for the player to master, it retains it's charming difficulty, wheras into the wind, the hard-to-hold or hard-to-hit-real-close short par 4 green gives the better players a break. Not a universal point by any means.

Whilst a number of very long par 4s and genuine three shot par 5s are played down wind so as not to be too brutal, a long hole into the wind will often utilise that wind as part of it's length, not just the yardage.

If wind direction can be taken into consideration, fine. But more to hypothesise on the shots and styles of play, not to more rigidly govern the hole length.

« **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2003, 08:20:36 PM »

Tim Weiman:

If an architects (TF in this case) doesn't factor the prevailing wind or ANY wind into the equation when designing courses I have to wonder what the hell the focus is -- might it be the location of the clubhouse? The practice range? The houses?

I just believe the wind needs to be calculated no matter what direction it plays because this is central in achieving some sort of balanced presentation of the course. When I hear people say a course in question can only play "great" with one style of wind direction (i.e. Olympis Fields come qucikly to mind as the wind came from the northwest instead of the southwest) then in my mind that course isn't great -- it's just one dimensional and fairly limited IMHO.

« **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2003, 09:14:51 PM »

Matt is right — Wind is certainly a factor to be considered. I feel, however, that it ranks lower than 70% of many other routing factors. Exceptions would be sites in extremely windy locales: Bandon, Maui (Hawaii), west coast of Ireland, etc.

I agree with Jeff in that long holes should ideally play cross-wind or against — otherwise theyb will not play "long". Short should go with or cross — otherwise...well, you get it.

Here is some interesting wind trivia:

U.S. Weather Bureau
Wind Scale: The U.S. Weather Bureau uses a graduated scale of 13 levels (0–12) to represent different wind conditions at corresponding wind speeds:

   0   = Light (less than 1 mph)
   1   = Light (1–3 mph)
   2   = Light (4–7 mph)
   3   = Gentle (8–12 mph)
   4   = Moderate (13–18 mph)
   5   = Fresh (19–24 mph)
   6   = Strong (25–31 mph)
   7   = Strong (32–38 mph)
   8   = Gale (39–46 mph)
   9   = Gale (47–54 mph)
10   = Whole Gale (55–63 mph)
11   = Whole Gale (64–75 mph)
12   = Hurricane (above 75 mph)

« **Reply #9 on:** July 08, 2003, 09:56:27 PM »

A Web site you might enjoy: the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States, at http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/ .

« **Reply #10 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:33:44 PM »

Matt Ward:

It is probably never fair to quote someone famous in the industry, especially when the topic at hand was only briefly discussed.

That aside, I think Fazio was merely trying to convey that the routing process is far more complicated than just consideration of the prevailing wind or the location of the clubhouse! Ironically, the site where I asked Fazio about this subject was right in the middle of a couple golf holes where wind signficantly effects play. Fazio could have said "yes, Tim, I planned it that way". Instead, he showed me and others present enough respect to say that actually many other factors contributed to the final routing plan.

Good for him.

Forrest:

Having played a lot of golf on the West Coast of Ireland, I'm not quite sure how consideration of prevailing wind really works when it comes to routing.

Suppose you have a seaside course with both long par fours and short par threes right along the water facing in opposite directions. Does this represent taking the prevailing wind into account? Or is it almost inevitable when you are trying to maximize holes along the water but also insure that they are spread out on both nine holes?

« **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:39:43 PM »

Darren, et al

Here are some of Ran's thought on this--taken from his review of Killspindie:

What, then, about the seven painfully short par fours? Five of those (5, 9, 11, 12, 18) play predominantly west to east, with the prevailing wind helping, while the other two (6 and 17) play into the wind. Those defenders of par, who have set aside their prejudices to enjoy at least the setting, will maintain that such a plan is the height of folly as those short holes will now play that much shorter (indeed, in a particularly strong wind one author found his three-wood to be too much on several of those holes and a 4-iron (!) too much on another (the 18th).

The authors, however, will argue the opposite. Into the wind, such holes would play like a rather routine drive-and-pitch 330 yard holes. Downwind, though, the player faces the task of finding the green from some 290 yards - a novel challenge he relishes. When (or if) one discards par, these holes become great fun and of tremendous interest. The 18th, for example, is some 250 yards long with the wind helping, but the tee shot across the corner of the wall to the green smack in front of the clubhouse is a demanding yet appealing stroke. How silly that, if the club were to change the '4' on the card to a '3,' the hole would be regarded as one of the strongest and unique finishing holes in Scotland (instead of being dismissed as a 'weak' par four).

« **Reply #12 on:** July 08, 2003, 11:33:55 PM »

Tim,

Good question. My best answer is that wind is almost never the overriding factor in a routing. Variety rules!

When I referred to short holes palying with the wind it was my way of suggesting that to be "short" a hole needs to be so. As John L. Low observed (a favorite quote of mine), "The short hole should not be long."

At a course we're beginning next year in California the 14th is a monster par-5 into the wind and I purposefully kept the back yardage above 600-yards. Why? For the same reason. I wanted the hole to play long. And it will. At least until we see clubs made of Tevlon-Kurotorium-640 Alloy.

Along the coast of Ireland (or anywhere) wind will play a factor and should be kept varied and not a burden. This is why a change of direction is such a welcomed routing trait. However, the bays and canyons of the land are far more crucial...usually. So you can never pay attention to just one aspect. I would suspect your description of the holes would be fine...again, providing there is variety and interest at every turn and tee.

« **Reply #13 on:** July 09, 2003, 08:52:38 AM »

I can not put my finger on a prevailing wind where I live in the midwest...what percentage of time does a wind have to blow to prevail or is this more of a factor near large wet things.

« **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:24:12 AM »

Ask the Tour players (or any other good player) and they'll tell you wind is still the number one design element to consider. I'll grant that when you are trying to get 18 holes through housing and back to the clubhouse, it often takes a back seat in some respects, but it really is important.

I do design with the prevailling wind in mind, and try to balance out holes of each type (3,long 4,short 4, and 5 ) to all wind points, knowing, as Jaka B suggests, that you can trust that wind to be consistent about as much as you can trust an alcoholic to be consistent, and that it will be as true as statements made by a riverboat gambler during a card game.....

However, even if the routing gets good wind variety as a start, ther real test is in feature design. If you design a green to bend with the prevailing wind, and the wind is blowing the other way, it can be a very hard golf hole 30% or so of the time.

It's easier to consider in the Midwest than in Texas. There, the wind typically blows from the SW in summer and NW in fall or winter. The NE wind Shivas refers to is rare enough to ignore. In Texas, the seasonal winds shift from the south in summer, to blue northers in winter, and we have a 12 month golf season.

The difference is that in Chicago, a south facing hole is going to have wind blowing right to left in one way or another most days. In Dallas, the wind may blow exactly opposite - from downwind to upwind. I know of many greens (not mine of course) that simply do not hold a shot in the winter here, as they are too shallow in downwind condtions.

The only solution I have found to these Texas winds are bigger greens, and rounder greens that allow attack the way the golfer wants to. Except, when I decide to make an exception, but the narrow green on an east facing hole (which will always have cross wind) won't prove popular....

« **Reply #15 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:50:37 AM »

Forrest:

I've encountered so many different wind conditions while playing at Ballybunion that I'm skeptical architects can really place much emphasis on the "prevailing wind" when routing golf holes. It seems like wind conditions are more likely to influence other things, e.g., fairway width, green size, ability to play run up shots, etc.

I have a love affair with the Cashen course, but am well aware of how many people dislike the course. Personally, I doubt the routing has much to do with it. Rather, I think people dislike how difficult it can be to hit small, elevated greens that have no opportunity for run up shots while you are typically playing in pretty fierce wind. Moreover, in contrast to something like Pacific Dunes, the Cashen's fairways are quite narrow in certain places making for lots of lost balls and probably frustration.

Finally, at Ballybunion it isn't so much about playing into or against the wind. Instread, one is usually faced with cross winds and the need to judge how much this will move the ball. For example, I remember hitting to the 13th green on the Old Course by aiming a good 50-60 yards out to the right!

« **Reply #16 on:** July 11, 2003, 12:34:55 AM »

Tim,

I agree about the stability of wind direction — it's an odd natural condition. However, there are locales and spots on sites where vthe wind is predictable. Very so.

I happen to live in the least windy large city on Earth — Phoenix. But, even here, we get very predictable winds. So much so that the airport has only a few time sin the past many years changed directions from their standard routine: Easterly landings until noon — westerly landings until around midnight.

« **Reply #17 on:** July 11, 2003, 08:41:00 AM »

Forrest,

Could that be so planes don't have to land on their shadow...I really wish more routings would be done so I don't have to see my fat profile when I tee off. I hate trying to look at the ball with the shadow of my head moving all over the place.

« **Reply #18 on:** July 11, 2003, 11:15:01 AM »

Shadows are something I've thought of in routings — but almost always after the course was built. I've looked at sunlight and issues such as that with regard to turf — but I forget about shadows from play.

Your comment reminded me of Alice and Pete Dye who always prefer cart paths (access) on the right side of tees so ladies bending over will not have to have their rears facing those in the carts — true!

« **Reply #19 on:** July 11, 2003, 11:21:00 AM »

Quote from: Forrest Richardson on July 11, 2003, 11:15:01 AM

Your comment reminded me of Alice and Pete Dye who always prefer cart paths (access) on the right side of tees so ladies bending over will not have to have their rears facing those in the carts — true!

Left-handed women: The most overlooked (and, at the tee, most looked-over) minority in golf!

« **Reply #20 on:** July 11, 2003, 11:32:22 AM »

I recall playing a short par four at Royal Dublin.I was inside 100 yards downwind.The conditions were so firm and fast i could not imagine holding the green with any club that got the ball up in the air.I putted it 90 yards.
Not until i saw this thread did i realize how much less challenging the hole would have been if it were into the wind.

« **Reply #21 on:** July 11, 2003, 11:44:42 AM »

Now there's a Martha Burke cause!

« **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2003, 11:47:52 PM »

Darren,

An interesting contrast to your question is Shinnecock and NGLA two courses that are adjacent to one another.

Shinnecock appears to be designed with the prevailing wind in mind, and NGLA might have be designed without the prevailing winds in mind. Although, I've learned from the McBrides, that the best bet is to tee off early, and make the turn just as the winds from the south kick up.

The long holes at Shinnecock usually play down wind and the shorter holes into the wind. Some holes play across the prevailing wind. But, in general, I'd say that the course as it is presently constituted, has the longer holes play downwind.

Perhaps TEPaul and Wayne can provide some insight into Shinnecock and the wind.

« **Reply #23 on:** July 16, 2003, 10:16:13 AM »

"Perhaps TEPaul and Wayne can provide some insight into Shinnecock and the wind."

There's a very interesting essay written by Shinnecock's historian, David Goddard, that goes a long way to explaining the design (and routing) analysis of Shinnecock in a prevailing wind context. I'll try to post the highlights of it sometime soon.

The question is;

"Re: Into the wind build 'em long, or build 'em short?"

Does it really matter unless someone is particularly concerned with the formulaic or standardized side of golf architecture revolving around such things as GIRs, overconcern with "par" etc?

Build 'em anyway you want to is what I say. One of the themes of Coore & Crenshaw, certainly in recent times, seems to be to build at least a hole or two per course, particularly a long par 4 that is brutally long anyway but made more so by routing it dead into the teeth of the prevailing wind. Why do they do that? I don't know but if I were to guess I'd say they love to mix it up, play with golfers' minds and poke fun at formulaics and standardizations in golf and architecture. It seems to me both of them have been dabbling and experimenting with concepts for a time now that psychologically skew particularly good players' minds in relation to a hole's par!

But when it comes to the wind and using it cleverly on golf holes and skewing par at the same time I can't think of much better than holes #3 & #4 at Pacific Dunes by Doak. These two holes are good ones anyway but the prevailing wind there seasonally changes just about 180 degrees making these holes play much different seasonally. #3 is a medium length par 5 and #4 is a pretty long par 4 in the opposite direction. #3 plays like a good par 5 into the wind and like a longish par 4 downwind and then #4 plays like a medium par 4 downwind and like a short par 5 into the wind.

Presumably all this goes on when there's wind every day but radially different seasonally. If all this isn't one of the best examples I know of how to force a golfer to forget about the incremental hole par of either hole, if they're concerned with par, and just look at the two holes as almost a single combined par and get passed the two of them with 9 either way!!

Great stuff!

« **Reply #24 on:** July 16, 2003, 04:20:17 PM »

TEPaul,

I don't think that consideration for the wind is any more formulaic then consideration for the sun, which is almost universal.

Certain formulas are prudent, the result of centuries of experience.

Starting the first hole to the east and the 18th to the west is a clear no-no in golf course architecture. It's not formulaic, it's common sense coupled with the facts that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

I can't imagine an architect designing a hole where the golfer can't get home in regulation due to the prevailing wind.

With respect to Pacific Dunes and # 3 & # 4, I thought that they were about 70 degrees apart, not 180 degrees.

News:

Darren_Kilfara

Tim_Weiman

Brad Swanson

A_Clay_Man

Jeff_Brauer

Doug Wright

tonyt

Matt_Ward

Forrest Richardson

Dan Kelly

Tim_Weiman

Steve Wilson

Forrest Richardson

JakaB

Jeff_Brauer

Tim_Weiman

Forrest Richardson

JakaB

Forrest Richardson

Dan Kelly

mike_malone

Forrest Richardson

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci