What makes a hole or feature great ?

« **on:** August 05, 2003, 09:18:39 AM »

I've noticed that many threads don't focus on golf course architecture.

Darren Kilfara attempted to start a Hole of the Day thread, but, without an accompanying photo, it was difficult.

I don't have photo posting capability but perhaps Scott Burroughs, CDisher and others can help out with this thread.

To start this particular thread, or series, I would ask:

What makes the road hole green so architecturally appealing ?
What makes it so challenging to the golfer.

Replicas of this green appear at # 7 at NGLA and # 8 at Piping Rock. Are there any other bonafide replicas, and if so, could you list them. Photos of them and the two I've listed would be most appreciated.

Is the PRIMARY success and appeal of the road hole green the angle that is presented, the hazards that border its perimeter, its cant or slope, its distance from the approach zone, its elevation ?

This is a green that would succeed as a par 3,4 or 5 green, with an approach from almost an unlimited variety regarding distance, and, a green that would succeed from almost any approach angle.

Why is this green so successful ?

Why don't we see more of them ?

« **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2003, 10:28:23 AM »

It's great first of all because of its unique beauty--contrasts of line and texture between the green curves of the approach and putting surface and the rough gray straight line of the wall. It's casual, informal, sometimes with people loitering behind the wall, the playing fields and hills in the background. There's nothing contrived to draw attention to it. Yet it's special.

It has an unfathomable quality. Danger in the beauty. You can't see the bottom of the bunker from a distance. It's often just a shadow, depending on the light. But it lurks. You know about it. And show it great respect.

It shows you a little leg as you approach, the bail area to the right, a bit of the green, but since you are coming up a mild slope, most of it hidden behind the reverse lip above the bunker, it retains a mystery. (I keep thinking of analogies to a beautiful woman, but they would get tiresome.)

It requires things of you. It allows the very strong player to seek it in two, if the player has played well and conditions permit, but gives options to the rest of us. There are things you must do to be rewarded, and must not do to avoid punishment. You can't be stupid and still get lucky. (Another female analogy was avoided here.)

It's always changing. Your chip technique must accomodate wind, pin placement, where you landed, turf conditions and the state of your nerves. Throw away the cookie cutter and mould that dough with your hands.

Plus you are primed for it, approaching it after one of the most exhilerating tee shots in golf.

Physical beauty. Challenge. Variety. A changeling of a hole, always revealing more. There's much more that others will identify on this interesting thread.

« **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2003, 10:36:29 AM »

To me the Road Hole green works because of the combination of:
1. Angled green,
2. Narrow green,
3. Difficulty/Hazards on each side,
and it needs all three of these to be the fearsome green it is. The fact that it is elevated and has some internal contour adds to the challenge, but not as much as 1-3 above. I would say that for this type of green, 1-3 make up the cake and things like green elevation, internal contours/slopes, wind, approach distance, etc. make up the icing.

When you angle a green, make it narrow, and place difficulty/hazards on each side, that is the ultimate test of shotmaking because it is very rare to get away with a poor or mishit shot, and the recovery options are unpredictable and possibly severe. The player really has to choose a particular approach shot and execute it correctly. Any elevation of the green, bold green contours, wind, etc. make the task even tougher.

The 11th at the CC of Charleston, often discussed on this site, is another example of a narrow, angled green with hazards on each side. It is drastically elevated as well which compounds the challenge. Redan par 3's work in the same way.

Here are a couple of diagrams of the Road Hole and green:

« **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2003, 10:46:41 AM »

Forgot to respond to: "Why don't we see more of them?"

1. Too difficult
2. Maintenance Issues: the St. Andrews turf will hold up under the traffic, but not most golf courses.
3. Everything's set up for high appoaches these days.
4. Speed, speed, speed is the issue on greens these days, not placement, protection and contour.
5. Failure of im-ag-in-a-tion.

« **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2003, 01:10:23 PM »

David Lott,

I'm not sure that I understand # 2, the maintainance issue.

Could you elaborate ?

Thanks.

« **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2003, 01:41:01 PM »

Patrick- I can't speak directly to the road hole but the generalities being described seem to be those associated with great holes I can speak of. The angle of orientation of the green, the close proximity of "death" and the "tease" of playing to somewhere safer. Along with the aesthetics of texture, the challenge of elevation changes and wind. Great holes that I'm familiar with have these common elements.
#7,8,9,15,16@CPC, #8,9,10,14,16,17@Pebble, #2,4,8,9,10,12,14,@Spyglass, #7,8,11,12,13,14,15,17@Sand Hills etc.

One underated hole comes to my mind is #11 at Pebble. Has all these elemnts, yet few see it as great. Maybe it's the houses?

« **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2003, 01:46:07 PM »

Pat,

I have tied in the past to do a thread like this, and it is hard to succeed because the topic somehow goes elsewhere. I hope it succeeds here. and while I'm going to be talking about a club, and not any paticualr golf hole, I hope I can express this properly to what you are getting at.

I just recently got to experience Olympic Club entirely for the first time. I'm forever and entirely impressed, and somehwat dumfounded by the past criticism of what is a GREAT golf course. People will point out of the monotony of the direction of holes and the lay of the land, resulting in that ball below your feet/ball above your feet-camber affect. I find it to be just the opposite. You better not forget where you're standing while at Olympic, because that is the secret to its charm and how where you lay in regards to the target. Olympic as a site takes advantage of all of the quriks that make the game truely charming.

#1 for example--How many of you have actually been able to describe the small sand dune and surrounding movement that fronts the first green? What about the natural shaping that occurs not just at this hole, but many of the approach throats leading to the putting surfaces and targets on all of the holes?

What about the absolute quirky nature of the famed 18th, and how it is literally like stepping up this huge ancient dune to a natural amphitheater?

I'm using this course as an example, and when time permts it, I will further describe details about small mundane little Billy Bell Sr. courses around here that are full of the features we love and respect.

« **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2003, 02:15:45 PM »

Ummmm.....Back to the Road Hole.

Patrick,
You are right in saying that this type of green retains its interest from any angle of approach, although the approach shot requirements change as the approach angle changes.

Suppose the approach was looking straight down the green, with the Road Bunker left and the road right. Then it becomes a supreme test of accuracy, with any off-line shots in big trouble, but with mishit straight shots probably ending up OK.

If the approach were 90 degrees from that, with the Road Bunker short and the road long, then it becomes a challenge of controlling the distance with the shorter clubs (assuming the ball will stop upon landing), and with the longer clubs it is a challenge of controlling the distance while being straight enough to go left or right of the bunker. So the challenge is magnified.

And then when the green is angled from the line of approach, there is a premium on both distance AND direction, and the margin for error left/right and short/long is smaller overall. The straight hitter can't get away with erring too far long (road) or short (Road Bunker interfering with the chip), and the player who controls his distance can't get away with erring too far left (bunker) or right (road). You simply must hit a quality shot or face an unpredictable and possibly extreme recovery shot (or lay up!).

« **Reply #8 on:** August 05, 2003, 02:40:54 PM »

Chris B,
OK Lets test you then since you don't agree with where I'm going. Describe to me land based FEATURES of the road hole that make it GREAT. Lets get away from the ideology of the shot or how the green is mastefully set. I totally agree with you. Talk to me about the oddities other then the road, the wall, and the carry off of the tee.

« **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2003, 02:42:51 PM »

Chris B,

TEPaul mentioned the green orientation in another thread when discussing the 7th at NGLA.

The beauty or genius of the green is that there is great diversity in ones approach shots, from any distance from almost any angle.

The green could present a very narrow target, or a very broad target, a very shallow target or a very deep target, all depending upon the location of the approach shot.

The deep fronting circular bunker and deep rear trench bunker add to the challenge, excitement and club selection.

As I studied this green, I couldn't help wondering why more of them hadn't been created. Mainly, because of the wonderful diversity they offer, from any distance, from almost any angle.

If I was going to design a golf course, I can't see how I could go wrong by creating the road hole green on one of the holes.

Doesn't anyone else wonder why they are so rare ?

« **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2003, 02:49:08 PM »

Yes, Pat, but take about what makes the fabric of that green Forget about the shot. Everybodies styles of play are different. Even you have told me that!:)

What are the features that make it GREAT.

« **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2003, 03:07:12 PM »

Tommy Naccarato,

I think that's the question I posed in opening this thread.

It's too early for me to render my opinion, others will have to put forth their theories.

« **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2003, 03:30:37 PM »

What makes the Road Hole great?

Hmmmm.....

First, the tee shot. No matter how well you are playing (good or bad) you have to give in and have faith to INTENTIONALLY drive the ball over an area that is blind and carry it over an area that is out-of-bounds. If you choose to not give in to having faith then you have a line of play that sets you up into knee high fescue.

Second, the approach shot. The green being angled in a way that makes a large green play like a small one is incredibly challenging. Even though it is not shaped completely like a Redan style green it does hold a similar angle and has hazards placed in similar locations (bunker fronting left side of green, trouble long, and a perched putting surface come to mind).

Third, the green complex. I can't think of many green complexes that have hazards surrounding it that are as necessary to avoid as #17 at the Old Course. Even though they don't look too penal from the approach shot they are well know by any avid golfer and are RESPECTED like no others. The Road Hole Bunker (or Sands of Nakijima) are avoided at nearly all costs by a prudent player. Yet, when one is compelled to challenge a pin position on the hole the excitement in the shot has very few peers. The old ABC line for ABC's Wide World of Sports comes to mind..... "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat." Recovering from the Road Hole Bunker, the Road itself, or even the wall can be so fun and heart wrenching at the same time that you don't know whether to laugh or cry. What's wonderful is that even though the Road Hole Bunker is the focal point of all hazards on the hole you can still make a big number never going into it.

Here's my story.....

After working for the R&A running the scoreboard on the 15th hole during the 1995 Open Championship at St. Andrews Old Course I had the pleasure of playing it the first day it was available after the tournament. The tees, pins, grandstands and scoreboards were exactly where they were on the final day. After challenging the Principle's Nose on #16 and making birdie I came to the Road Hole even par.

Here is how I played #17.....

Tee shot - I chickened out and tried to cut the ball around the shed instead of having the faith to play it over the shed. Needless to say my ball ended up in some deep fescue left of the fairway.

Approach SHOTS (plural) - I tried to advance the ball with a 7-iron and it went about 50 yards. Still in heavy rough I tried to hit a pitching wedge short of the right front portion of the green and hopefully have it bounce up onto the putting surface. I caught a flier and it landed on the green and bounced over about 6 inches from the wall.

Chip SHOTS (plural) - I had no choice other than to do my best Tom Watson impersonation and chip the ball off the wall. Being too cautious my ball bounced off the wall and onto the Road. Now, faced with a shot off asphalt I tried to run the ball into the bank bank and pop it up onto the green. It failed to get over the bank and rolled back onto the dirt path just over the green. From there, I decided to slide a Lob Wedge under the ball to clear the bank and get it close. I hit a decent shot to about 10 feet.

Putting - I missed the 10 footer and walked off the Road Hole with an 8 and was 4-over par for the round.

I proceeded to par #18 and shot 76.

Now, most would cringe and be deflated walking off the course and I was definitely depressed that I had blown a great round. However, in the 10 minutes I stood behind the 18th green looking back at the Road Hole I came to realize that what I had just gone through was what the Road Hole is all about. Had I made a 3 there I would have felt the same way that I did after an 8 on what the Road Hole represents to a player. It is golf's ultimate "gut-check" and obviously I had emtied my guts all over that hole.

It truly delivers "The thrill of victory 'OR' the agony of defeat" and that is what makes it great.

Jeff F.

« **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2003, 03:37:03 PM »

Sorry, Tommy,
I really was more confused with where you were going than in disagreement. I thought Pat wanted to stick with the Road Hole on this thread.

And I'm not sure how to answer your test for me. As a player first and GCA enthusiast second, it is difficult for me to separate the land-based features of a green from how those features will affect the selection and outcome of the approach shots (and recovery shots).

In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that the land-based features are what makes the hole great, although they do add icing to the cake. Features like:
(i) the depression short and left of the Road Hole bunker which funnel balls directly behind it, leaving the bunker directly between the ball and the hole for the pitch,
(ii) the raised area around the upper lip of the Road Bunker which pushes ball away from the hole if you try to putt or chip around the Road Bunker, but with just enough slope toward the bunker that if you creep too close it will suck it in (I have both chipped into and putted into the Road Bunker, but got it up-and-down afterward!),
(iii) the same raised area that will allow a shot from on or over the road to be played up against it so that the ball funnels back and ends the game of ping-pong across the green from bunker to road,
(iv) the slight back to front tilt of the back (road) end of the green that can help funnel a draw to a back pin, but which suddenly becomes a real problem if the ball goes over the green because the recovery becomes an up-and-over shot to an elevated green running away,
(v) the flattish safe area short-right where lay-ups are aimed, but can leave a difficult chip if the approach is left too far short and the Road Bunker interferes, and
(vi) the tier in front which means that even innocent-looking front pins can't be taken lightly.

In my opinion, these are all icing on the cake, and the green would still be excellent without them. For me, the key to the green's greatness is in the orientation first (narrow angled green with fierce difficulties/hazards on each side), and then in the land second.

Hope I've given you a good answer. CB

« **Reply #14 on:** August 05, 2003, 03:58:15 PM »

Chris,
You have given me a perfect answer, albeit not an entirely complete one--you forgot to add the rise of the entire right side next to the road!

There is also the mound that is next to the dyke of the OC Hotel that is a mystery to some. I think it is either a former ancient tee for the reverse course or some ancient old green or ancient rail yard encroachment. That ancient "feature" catches a lot of shots too!

As Patrick has pointed out, he wants to see where others are going with this. I would like to see him instead, direct where it is going instead of instigating where it is heading!

(in regards to advocating an opinion.)

Later on, I will scan the green topo and its surrounds and post it. Lets see who knows it all! (Hint: it won't be me, because I will forever be a student of the Old Course. That's just the way it is.)

« **Reply #15 on:** August 05, 2003, 05:02:53 PM »

Quote from: Tommy_Naccarato on August 05, 2003, 03:58:15 PM

Chris,
You have given me a perfect answer, albeit not an entirely complete one--you forgot to add the rise of the entire right side next to the road!

Oops--that's what I was referring to in (iv) above, but I wasn't clear enough. I hear you - a student of St. Andrews is a lifelong designation. I am heading there next week and I'm going to take another good hard look at #17 (with revised bunker) and find something new to marvel about.

« **Reply #16 on:** August 05, 2003, 09:14:39 PM »

Patrick--It's a relatively small green with parts that aren't good for pin placement that gets a lot of play. Thus a similar green in areas with more delicate turf or less benign conditions for growing it might have problems of wear.

You set up an interesting discussion.

« **Reply #17 on:** August 05, 2003, 09:39:56 PM »

No one seems to want to focus on the pure aesthetic--color, line, texture, framing.

Or how it reveals itself.

From the tee--completely hidden.

From the fairway--the flag, the bunker, the fragments of green, and the wall reminding of what lies beyond.

The openness around the green--wind and clouds and sky.

Up close--contours, backstops, slippery edges, all looking and performing differently from different angles.

The bunker again, different up close. Does anyone walk by and not steal a glance at the texture of the sod, and the steepness, and the shadows?

Most of the talk on this thread is about shot values, and the shot values are wonderful, but a great hole, and a great green, must have mystery and beauty. Mystery and beauty are always connected, which is why some holes that aspire to greatness are merely pretty.

« **Reply #18 on:** August 05, 2003, 09:59:51 PM »

David Lott,

Two terrific road hole greens and surrounds reside on Long Island. Perhaps the climate and soil are conducive to their longevity.

Both of those greens are fairly large, although, Piping Rock's green appears much bigger and more sloped.
Piping Rock's hole is a par 4, NGLA a par 5.

These greens would seem capable of survival in the northeast, but perhaps the sod faces would have to have special maintainance and be rebuilt more often.

If these two greens have survived for 80 to 90 years I don't see an impediment to building them in this neck of the woods.

They offer brilliant strategy and play.

« **Reply #19 on:** August 05, 2003, 10:46:12 PM »

Patrick, I'm no agronomist. I probably can't even spell agronomist, but perhaps the northeast with rain, cool springs and falls and winter rest is more conducive. The seriously hot and seriously dry areas of the country may differ. I'm just postulating (a fancy word for guess.) Maybe we have an expert following this thread who knows.

Patrick, a question for you.

Was the Road Hole green "great" when the hole was a par five and could be reached in regulation with a much less taxing shot? Or did it become great only when the par was modified?

The Road Hole is (or was before the 300 yard drive became a commonplace) a bit of a freak as a par four, but a pedestrian par five. Can a "great" feature exist on an average hole?

« **Reply #20 on:** August 06, 2003, 07:32:07 AM »

David Lott,

I find the green itself, brilliant.

As I posted earlier, the green could be played from almost any distance, from almost any angle, and retain its challenge and sport.

I think however, that the nuances of the green come to light as one gets closer to it.

One of the examples TEPaul and I have discussed is the myriad number of shots that can be played to the 7th at NGLA from 100 yards and in, to the various hole locations.

Even little 5 and 10 yard shots present a substantial challenge
and allow the golfer to use virtually every club in the bag in their attempt to get to the hole.

So, I think, as a par 5, with a little longer length, the green would radiate the genius of its design.

« **Reply #21 on:** August 06, 2003, 08:51:54 AM »

There are two main reasons why the Road Hole has acquired such greatness: it's virtually unique in the golf world, and it works. Strategically, it works for all of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Of course, a significant number of holes in the golf world "work" as well as the Road Hole does, and a hole can be great without being as unique as the Road Hole. (The flip side of this equation is rare - an example being Desmond Muirhead's infamous par 3 at Stone Harbor with the football-shaped island green with jaws for bunkers, which qualifies for uniqueness but doesn't "work" in any sane man's reckoning. Sorry, Tommy!) But on a course that can get away with uniqueness for whatever reason, a unique hole that works can become truly great.

I find that the concept of uniqueness is an interesting one to ponder. The Old Course gets away with uniqueness because of its history and timelessness. Cypress Point, in the case of the great 16th hole, gets away with uniqueness because of the awesome cliffs and scenery - create an exact replica of CPC #16 in Florida, with ponds instead of the cliffs, and you'd have a golf hole nobody would want to play, instead of one which everyone wants to play. Other courses get away with uniqueness because of the sheer force of character possessed by the architectural personalities involved (e.g. NGLA and Macdonald, Pine Valley and Crump). Obviously, every hole and golf course has some degree of uniqueness, in that no two holes are alike (even the copycat Tour 18 courses don't succeed in creating EXACT replicas). But the greatest, and most truly special, golf experiences thrive upon some uniqueness of a different class, don't they? What else makes a course unique, or a hole as unique as the Road Hole?

Cheers,
Darren

« **Reply #22 on:** August 06, 2003, 11:16:32 AM »

Patrick--I agree that it would work as "great" on a longer par five, and that it's a green design that would work on all manner of holes. However, that begs the question of whether it was a "great" green on THIS hole before the par was changed to four. My surmise is that the angled nature of the green was a function of it's having been a par five, to enable it to recieve a third shot. Thus its greatness may be somewhat accidental. (As Seinfeld would say, "nothing wrong with that.")

I'm not sure whether the Road Hole was so universally praised when it was a five. Does anyone know? Perhaps not, but this may not mean much since this much jabber about golf course design wasn't going on. They were too busy fighting wars and getting out of Depressions.

I agree also that the close up aspects of the green are among the most interesting. I played the hole about 20 times a few summers ago, never getting on in two. (Never trying to, even after a very good drive, as my game is better suited to more reward, less risk.) I made par about a third of the time with this approach, and the hole never played the same way twice, even though I was ususally in roughly the same chipping/pitching area. I used to enjoy walking out there in the late afternoon to watch groups come through. Some of it was pretty funny.

I was never in the Road Hole bunker with this approach. Eventually I got brazen enough to just drop some balls in there and hit some shots out. My strategy confirmed. Not a pretty sight.

My view--this was an excellent but not "great" green as a par five green on THIS hole. That doesn't make it any less great now. Serendipity counts.

I'm still surprised that more posters don't comment on the visual aesthetic. There is much praise for holes at Cypress, Pebble, etc. Why? In part because they are beautiful to look at, even though this is not acknowledged. (Darren K. does so indirectly in his most recent post.)

I usually don't participate in threads, as I haven't played many of the courses discussed, or have played them only a few times, and thus have no strong basis for an opinion. (This doesn't stop everyone, but it stops me.) But this is fun for me. Thanks.

« **Reply #23 on:** August 06, 2003, 08:10:52 PM »

David Lott,

I think that the 7th green is superior to the 17th green, as a par 4 or par 5.

If a hotel was plunked down next to the 7th tee at NGLA I'm sure the drive and the hole would be extremely difficult.
Or, if you removed the hotel from # 17, the hole would get much easier and perhaps lose some, if not most of it's adoration.

The 17th hole is elevated in stature by an artificial feature outside the lines and field of play.

The question I would now pose is:

If you took away the hotel, would you take away the reverance for the hole ?

« **Reply #24 on:** August 06, 2003, 08:18:10 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 06, 2003, 08:10:52 PM

If you took away the hotel, would you take away the reverance for the hole ?

In my opinion: no, not at all. The hotel doesn't make the hole for me in the slightest - it's the road, then the green complex in general, then Road Bunker, then the test of driving that make the Road Hole great, in that order. And "test of driving" is about a diagonal drive flirting with OB right, not about a shot over faux railway sheds and around a luxury hotel. If you removed the hotel (and kept the essential playing characteristics of the hole the same, including the blindness of drive), I think my appreciation for the Road Hole would wax, not wane...

Cheers,
Darren

News:

Patrick_Mucci

David Lott

CHrisB

David Lott

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

Tommy_Naccarato

CHrisB

Tommy_Naccarato

Patrick_Mucci

Tommy_Naccarato

Patrick_Mucci

Jeff Fortson

CHrisB

Tommy_Naccarato

CHrisB

David Lott

David Lott

Patrick_Mucci

David Lott

Patrick_Mucci

Darren_Kilfara

David Lott

Patrick_Mucci

Darren_Kilfara