Cuscowilla no. 1. Short par 4.

It is the simplest, most elegant, most strategic opening hole I've played.

You know standing on the first tee that this is a special course.

Bob

To me the ideal first hole is a hole that really symbolizes what the course is about.  It should be like a good introduction to a book.  It gives you a feel of what the book is about and just whets the appetite for more.  I think the best example I have seen is the 1st at Crystal Downs.

I'm with Chris all the way. The first hole of a great course should be like an intro or a preface. It needn't be all easy but it should reflect some of the features that will be prominent throughout your round.

Thats not to say courses that start with a big bang can't be good, but I think as far as a "great" course is concerned, having a climax too early will certainly detract from any greatness.

Mike- The first time we teed off at SH the wind was a calm 45mph out of the NW(?) Mostly in your face with a slight quarter from the left. I can remember not being able to get the fact that I was putting for par out of my head. Of course that led to more.

Black Mesa'a first is great start because the shot demand is minimal, compared the vexing look.

Can be either a par 4 or par 5, but MUST allow players of all skill levels to hit a driver. I doubt if many long hitters can hit driver at NGLA, but what do I know about long hitters! Some of the worst opening holes I have seen encourage  even average hitters to hit an iron off the tee (Pinehurst #8, Beaver Creek, and Cliffs of Glassy).

Avoid placing serious trouble on the right as most players tend to hit their first tee shot right. At least, I do.

Never tee off into the morning sun.

Jim Lewis

Quite like Long Cove no. 1 as a starter.

Close 2nd is NGLA, by a micron.

RT

Ballybunion (Old).  There's something about trouble right being a graveyard.

My favorites that haven't been mentioned include:

Royal Melbourne East
Royal County Down
Cherry Hills
Medinah #3
Seminole
Sunningdale Old
Cypress Point
Spyglass
Fenway
Quaker Ridge
Aronimink



All of the above feel like they let the player get going without too much terror. They do ask the player to "get into the round" and begin to think about shotmaking.

Some thing are a complete no, no...
- Par 3s
- Carry over water
- Drivable Par 4s

All of these lead to unnecessary delays to being the round.

I'd prefer one of two types of opening hole.  Either a shorter Par 4 that has some outside "character" which gets you into the mood of the course, or a moderately reachable Par 5 that requires thought and challenge on the 2nd shot.

The first holes at Pinehurst and Prestwick fit that first model.  Either could be played with an iron or fairwood off the tee, and not only do they offer a glimse into the character of the course (ie. the pushed up green at Pinehurst or the narrow fairway and gorse at Prestwick), but there is nothing that speaks to those course more than hearing the church bells from Pinehurst Village or seeing the starkness of the railroad tracks at Prestwick.  

The 1st at my home club, Raleigh CC, offers a great example of a Ross 1st hole.  It's 515 from the tips and plays slightly downhill.  The tee-shot is fairly open, but the long hitters are constrained by a small pond at about 300yds (but downhill, so reachable).  The second shot could be a simple lay-up or you can go for the green, but those going for the green are faced with a 2-3 iron, from a downhill / sidehill lie....early in the round.  A duff is in the pond, a slide is in the trees or potentially OB, but a well played shot can run onto the green.  For those that lay back, the approach (60-100yds) is to a narrow, Pinehurst-like undulating green that slope back to front, but falls off hard to the back.  So you're faced with an accurate approach early in the round.

There is also something compelling about a 1st tee on a course that doesn't have a practice area (ie. Prestwick, Royal County Down).

If you like the first hole to preface what's to come, how about Oakmont's kick in the teeth first? That green alone would wake anyone up.

Brian Gracely -

I used to think the same way, about beginning things slowly. But lately I've started to wonder if this isn't the ideal. It forces the starter to spread out the groups. It's not ideal in terms of getting golfers out quickly, but I think it might do a lot better job keeping them moving. Getting more golfers onto the course quickly seems like a formula for slow play, to me anyway.

George,

I never said that the round should start slowly.  In fact, I believe my "no, no" list would actually add to players standing and waiting on the first tee longer than necessary.  I'm not advocating the need to have 8 minute intervals vs. 10 minute intervals to speed up play.  Those 2 minutes usually end up getting lost by players talking or hitting mulligans or comparing their new drivers.  I'm all for getting off the tee, finding the ball quickly, approach the green and getting the round moving.

Patrick,

Sure, there are always examples of holes that fit a description.  But that doesn't mean they are always a good idea.  For things like opening Par 3s, I'd argue that most of them were only done because of the surrounding land near the clubhouse.  And having ponds directly in front of the tee does absolutely nothing for me in terms of challenge...stand on tee, don't look down, hit the ball over the water.  Where is the strategy or challenge in that?  

George Pazin:

I wrote my post without seeing yours. Interesting that we both have come to this feeling.......and believe me, I don't personally like the idea of starting on a par three.