I like the idea that 1st holes should present minimal difficulty off the tee, and enhanced concentration on the green. I like to be able to hit a driver w/out much worry if I spray, and I like something on my second shot to be a 7 iron or less.

When I get to the green, I like for it to be challenging, so that it gets me in the right frame of mind for putting, especially if the greens that follow are dramatically contoured, etc.

I'll go along with this. In that vein, and speaking locally, the 1st at Pete Dye's Eagle Creek's Sycamore Course (nee #10 of the Championship  Course) is visually dramatic, looking much harder than it actually plays, until you get to a very tricky green. Last time I played I hit driver/7 iron to the green. If I'm hitting that combination to a green, you know it ain't that long.


In terms of what doesn't work locally, #1 at Winding Ridge, which for the most is a pretty good design, is absolute disaster. From the whites a 190 yard forced carry over water  with water all down the right side of the fairway. And the course has no driving range. Tough way to start a round cold.

Aronimink offers a great start to your round.  Everything on the hole is laid out in front of you, with no trouble off the tee.  And, with some of the trees removed from behind the green, one get's a glimpse of some of the upcoming holes Granted, you do have to hit a good drive to make it up the crest of the hill, and from there you have a shot (anything from a 3-6 iron) into a pretty receptive green.  

Pat:

Good question -- let me just say this ... the ideal first hole for me should not be some pro forma short par-4 SIMPLY to get players started. That's why they invented the practice range.

I am growing a bit weary of everyone following the same tired cliche opening hole of it being rather benign and often times lack luster. Must the 1st hole always be a short par-4 -- then followed by a heroic and demanding long par-4 or its equivalent?

The ideal first hole for me should be one that's adventurous --where birdie and bogey are clearly at stake. The 1st at The Kingsley Club represents such a hole to me because it conveys the majesty of the property and the hole has a number of clear options for the bulk of all handicap types. And standing on the top of the tee overlooking the property clearly stirs the blood!

The first hole at the CC of Fairfield is a fairly easy par 5 that allow the player a fairly wide open tee ball (although OB looms on the right, the left side is huge). Birdie is a real possibility here - but aggressive swings by the unprepared golfer will result in a big score.  

The tee is surrounded by some of the only trees on the course.  The player walks out of the shadows into the light and gets a great view of nearly every hole on this links course.

It probably belongs in the category of first holes that were designed as warm-up holes due to the lask of any driving ranges, ala NGLA, etc.  But in this case the player gets a little more time since it is a par 5.  IMHO, its the perfect opener.

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.

I guess I wasn't clear in my post. When I said I used to agree with you, it was in that you don't like to see things begin slowly, as a par 3 or driveable par 4 might. As I said, I now believe that a quick start gets too many golfers onto the course too quickly, creating logjams. This is admittedly only a small part of the slow play issue, but I don't think getting people out quickly helps slow play at all. I'd rather get out slower but play a 3 1/2 hour round that get out quick & stand around during a 5+ hour marathon.

As Bob Crosby says, Cuscowilla #1 is a great introduction that lays out right away what the course is going to be like, but without being excessively difficult (that starts at #2!  ).
Slight dogleg left with left to right sloping fairway and left side fairway bunkers that you think you can carry.  The green is angled left to right so a drive that hugs or carries the bunkers is ideal, but the ground is firm and your ball runs to the right, getting the rightside greenside bunkers in the line of fire.  Fun fun fun!

I love the par 5 "get away" holes made famous by Dr MacKenzie, such as at Valley Club, Meadow Club and Pasatiempo.  Oakmont too in the original layout.  But the par 5's have been changed to long par 4's (not the best starting hole in my opinion) at Pasatiempo and Oakmont.  Best to ignore the par and play them like par 5's.

mdugger:

I agree with you about how common it is for golfers to go right from the car to the first tee. Sure, it's nice to hit a few warm up shots on the practice range, but quite often this doesn't happen, especially over in Europe where spending ANY time on the practice range is often unusual.

SPDB had it right suggesting that 1st holes shouldn't be too difficult off the tee, but demand concentration into and around the green to score.

George,

I think we're actually on the same page about the pace of the start.  The reason I don't like the Par 3 or reachable Par 4 is that too many people think their new 983K is going to be on the mark and they will start the day with an eagle putt. What ends up happening is they wait for the green to clear, slice it, and now multiple groups are slowed.

Mid-length holes allow you to play from the tee when the group is out of range and play to the green when it clears.  Nothing is rushed in this model due to a heroic shot.

JohnV;

The first hole at Pittsburgh Field CLub, particularly the tee shot, is perhaps the most dramatic I've ever seen in golf. The hole is 478yds though from the back tee marker, not 430. But with that breathtaking drop to the fairway it probably plays about 430yds.

Matt Ward said;

"-- let me just say this ... the ideal first hole for me should not be some pro forma short par-4 SIMPLY to get players started. That's why they invented the practice range.
I am growing a bit weary of everyone following the same tired cliche opening hole of it being rather benign and often times lack luster. Must the 1st hole always be a short par-4 -- then followed by a heroic and demanding long par-4 or its equivalent?"

Matt:

I really don't mean to appear to keep harping on some of the things you say--really I don't but those remarks seem to me to need some countering.

First of all, I'd never think to question your personal preference for an opening hole that 'gets your blood boiling', or whatever the phrase is (I assume your blood would be boiling with a stern opening hole but only after you've "smelled the coffee" too, right?    ).

But despite your personal preference of an opener other than a short one, I think its a bit callous and historically short sighted to make the comments you did about the shorter "get into the round" type openers.

First of all, who said everyone is following the same cliche of the opener being a short benign one? I haven't noticed that most or even many golf courses have that--have you?

Secondly, stating that "get into the round" holes aren't good or are 'tired cliches' or are 'benign' and 'that's what practice ranges were invented for' (so apparently a golfer wouldn't need such a hole) shows some lack of understanding of architectural history!

Did you realize that when many of those old opening "get into the round" holes were built and became somewhat of an architectural principle it was done that way for a very good reason? Virtually none of those old courses had practice ranges when they were built. Furthermore practice balls were virtually non-existent when many of them were built! I guess you didn't realize that though! So you probably think that now that almost all courses have practice ranges, included those old ones that weren't built with practice ranges, that those old "get into the round" holes are obsolete! Maybe you don't go that far but still, labelling them 'tired cliches' and 'benign' is a bit much!

Honestly, I truly don't mean to appear to be critical but do you think that now those courses have practice ranges that those short, albeit interesting, "get into the round" holes should be considered 'tired cliches", 'benign' or even obsolete? Or alternatively, did you have any understanding of at least one good reason why they were built that way? To say 'that's why they invented the practice range' would seem to indicate you don't.

Would you think that NGLA's and GCGC's openers would cease to be 'benign' or 'tired cliches' if those clubs could somehow figure out how to stretch those holes to about 440yds?
 

Don't like 3's or fives personally. I also don't like a tight long four either; perfer the idea of being eased into the round.

I like both the really short ones and stronger mid length holes.

The great exceptions for a long hole is a great high tee shots, or a very downhill hole: Crystal Downs is my favourite opener in golf, Lookout Point is second. Both play shorter due to being with the prevailing wing and very downhill.

Tougher mid length: Pinehurst is my favourite, Merion is fanatastic and Pine Valley's is great too

Short opener full of decisions: Philly C.C is brilliant, Detroit Golf Club is cool too

"At Apawamis, the first hole is both practice range and opening hole....literally."

Sean:

Almost but not quite literally. Apawamis is the home of the USSGA and one time at the annual meeting tournament I hit a tee shot there I wasn't that crazy about and I said; "That was just a practice shot, right?", and they said to me; "Not quite, Pal, since you just hit that drive from the 1st hole's tee markers!"