Classical features that should die, Vol 1..The Biarritz

[Jim Sweeney]

JohnK:

I think the strategic possibilities are the same regardless of one's handicap. If ability to cover the required distance is the issue, perhaps the player should player from a tee farther forward.

Not to be argumentative, it's not my style, but your comment implies no distinction between strategic possibilities between the biarritz and other styles for a six handicap. If that's correct (and I assure you I'm not certain), the corallary would be that the biarritz is as strategic as any other style.

I would agree that a biarritz which has a fairway for the front half seems to have less strategic interest than one where the entire structure is maintained as putting surface.

[Patrick_Mucci]

All the above says to me is that after close to a century the feature still doesn't work, can't be maintained to work and offers no options from the distance it is intended to work.

I would disagree with everyone of your conclusions.

One of the problems the Biarritz faced was survival during the depression, WW II and and period of financial hardship.

These factors almost always resulted in efforts to cut back on maintainance, and a Biarritz's front half, or sometimes the back half would be the first to be neglected.

They are fabulous golf holes.

But, let's start with acknowledging that virtually EVERY par 3 represents TARGET golf, hence Biarritz's are no different in that sense than any other par 3.

Variety, options and club selection abound on a Biarritz vis a vis hole location.   There's probably more variety and more options in playing a Biarritz than there are in the great majority of par 3's.

Most Biarritz's haven't been rendered obsolete by technology.
They still require long irons, woods or drivers.

Let's look at club selection.
With greens close to 80-90 yards in depth, you're talking about at least a 6-7 clublength difference based on hole location.

With respect to back hole locations you have the option of trying to fly it in, try to get to the hollow, or run it in.

The same applies to hole locations in the hollow.

And, on certain Biarritz's, front hole locations may offer both the aerial and ground approach.

It's also attractive because it usually rises up, like a fortress with trouble on the sides and long.

It is unusual, unsettling, and most golfers who see the hole for the first time are intimidated by it's look and defensive nature.

I can see how golfers today, whimps and fairness freaks that they are, would want Biarritz's removed from golf.  They are challenging, they aren't your ordinary par 3.  You aren't going to cozy the ball in for a routine par, you're going to have to fight and play your ass off to make a par, or a bogie.

John, how many Biarritz's have you played ?
Which ones ?
How many times ?

Does one get tired of playing # 9 at Yale ?
Or, if you've got a good round going are you thinking ahead about how you're going to play that hole.  If you haven't looked over from the first fairway are you worrying about where the hole is located ?

Does one ever get tired of playing # 11 at The Creek ?
During your round do you notice the direction and velocity of the wind and think about how that will affect your play of
# 11 ?

These are great holes, misunderstood by simple minds  
[/color]

[Mike McGuire]

Tom Doak-

Can you share any of the details regarding the restoartion of the biarritz at Bluemound?

[TEPaul]

"If they couldn't call that a Biarritz would they have built something like that?  That's what we are discussing here ... is the Biarritz really good architecture or is it just a device which shows that you are one of the cognoscenti?"

TomD:

Good question. That takes the discussion right to that point where it should be.

In my opinion, despite the massive and sometimes engineered look of the Biarritz hole and green, it is really good architecture.

Here's why I say that. If golf architecture can manage to distill a hole or the concept of a hole down to one essential element or feature around which so many possibilities in play for so many golfers revolve, then I feel it's good architecture.

Somewhat related to the size of most Biarritz greens I feel the traditional Biarritz swale does precisely that. Approaching, pitching, chipping, putting---that deep wide swale can factor into all of them so interestingly and effectively. Simple application really but so effective in play. I think that makes for good architecture (in play).
 
 

[Jim Sweeney]

Thank you, TP. Well stated.

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

I've played two true Biarritz holes that I recall off the top of my head...The second at St. Louis CC, which is a perfectly wonderful hole that may be the most interesting par three I have ever played...and one at Lookout Mountain that I recall at the time was only a partial green and dissapointing for that fact alone.

My love of the Biarritz at StLCC in no way justifies the need to repeat it in or at modern venues...

[John_Cullum]

Isn't the Biarritz one of the last holdouts from the age of geometric design? Take a rectangular green, generally flat and split in two with a swale across the middle. Likely the easieist hole from the template book to route in to the course.

[Brent Hutto]

My love of the Biarritz at StLCC in no way justifies the need to repeat it in or at modern venues...

That seems to be the key point. There's a certain set of expectations when playing a firm-and-fast quirky course that's been around for an age. Think North Berwick.

There's a different set of expectations when playing a course built last year to accomodate today's power aerial game.

Having a one-shotter with a Biarritz green on the former adds to the experience. Trying to fit one into the latter style of course is an exercise in WTF? for most players. The modern way of playing is better served by subtle swales of the type Tom D says are "inspired by the Biarritz".

[Patrick_Mucci]

My love of the Biarritz at StLCC in no way justifies the need to repeat it in or at modern venues...

Why not ?

If it has all of the qualities TEPaul and I mention, why wouldn't you want to duplicate it ?

Just look at all of the inferior, long par 3's created in modern golf and then tell me that inserting a Biarritz wouldn't be a breath of fresh air.[/color]

Brent,

First, I couldn't disagree more.

Secondly, you've confined your answer and perspective to the PGA Tour player.

Third, It's the perfect hole for today's power game.

Why do you think they've lengthened # 8 at Oakmont ?

Imagine a 280-300 yard Biarritz for the pros ?

But, one shouldn't view all of golf course architecture in the extremely narrow context of PRO golf, that's the failing and reason why so many golf courses are being disfigured.

[Jim Nugent]

probably the best answer to give you is the same answer that Sir Edmund Hillary gave to someone who asked him why he climbed Mt Everest?

Hillary said; "Because it is there."

Tom

You are wrong again.  That was Hillary Rodham Clinton when asked why in hell she had married Bill..........

Someone needs to straighten you two out on this, and it looks like the job falls on me.

Tom is close.  An Everest climber made the statement, but not Hillary.  It was George Mallory.  He was a great British climber of the 1920's, who spearheaded the early attempts on Everest.  He died on the mountain in 1924, perhaps after coming within a few hundred yards of the summit.  Climbing's biggest mystery/controversy is if he and his partner Andrew Irvine made it to the top.  A real interesting theory recently came out suggesting they did, with some good evidence to back them up.  

Everest does relate to Bill & Wife though, in a small way that again shows the elastic relationship the ex-prez has with truth.  Bill has said that his wife was named after Edmund Hillary, who first climbed Everest.  Only problem is that Sir Edmund didn't climb Everest till 1953, while Bill's wife was born in 1947.    

[John Kavanaugh]

My love of the Biarritz at StLCC in no way justifies the need to repeat it in or at modern venues...

Why not ?

If it has all of the qualities TEPaul and I mention, why wouldn't you want to duplicate it ?

Just look at all of the inferior, long par 3's created in modern golf and then tell me that inserting a Biarritz wouldn't be a breath of fresh air.[/color]

Sounds like the me generation has entered your thoughts....in a attempt to make every course interesting you turn doughnuts into oatmeal..not everyone has earned the right to play a biarritz just as not everyone needs a doughnut.

[Jim Nugent]

Pat,

I've played two true Biarritz holes that I recall off the top of my head...The second at St. Louis CC, which is a perfectly wonderful hole that may be the most interesting par three I have ever played...and one at Lookout Mountain that I recall at the time was only a partial green and dissapointing for that fact alone.

My love of the Biarritz at StLCC in no way justifies the need to repeat it in or at modern venues...

John, I'm curious why you count the second at SLCC as maybe the most interesting par three you have ever played.  When I caddied there nearly 40 years ago, it was one of my least favorite holes.  Never liked the semi-blind aspect of the hole.  Number 3 appealed more to me (and so did number 12).  For the same reason, I didn't care as much for the approach on number 18.  

I was only 16 at the time.  Maybe I'd react very differently to it now.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Paul:

I agree with your point.  The swale in the green is most interesting, and it does insert itself into play in all kinds of fascinating and different ways.

But the title of this thread is not "fascinating deep swales in greens."  It's about the Biarritz, and how often golf architects are going to continue to copycat not just the feature of the swale but the entire picture, a 220-yard par-3 with a big formal green.  In my opinion, there are not many courses where such a hole fits into the overall theme, and so most of the newer versions are misguided.

I guess if people would just stop calling such features "a Biarritz" I would be a lot more inclined to look at them practically in the situation in which they were used, but I still think there are a lot of architects about my age who are pandering to you by building something so you can call it a Biarritz.  That was exactly my reaction when the post was made about Pensacola CC, which was the reason John Kavanaugh started this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My love of the Biarritz at StLCC in no way justifies the need to repeat it in or at modern venues...

Why not ?

If it has all of the qualities TEPaul and I mention, why wouldn't you want to duplicate it ?

Just look at all of the inferior, long par 3's created in modern golf and then tell me that inserting a Biarritz wouldn't be a breath of fresh air.[/color]

Sounds like the me generation has entered your thoughts....in a attempt to make every course interesting you turn doughnuts into oatmeal..not everyone has earned the right to play a biarritz just as not everyone needs a doughnut.

That's an absurd stretch by any form of reasoning.
I'd venture to say that 75 % or more of those reading your above comment have NO idea as to what you're saying.

Neither TEPaul or myself indicated that every course should have a Biarritz.

However, every architect should make the effort to make their golf course interesting.   If it's not interesting, who is going to seek it out and play it, repetitively ?

Biarritz's have architectural value.
They are interesting, variable, challenging and unique.

Why WOULDN'T you want to incorporate them into a modern design ?

Or, are you in denial with respect to the value of "golden age" architecture ?

Are you promoting the concept that only modern day architecture has value ?

And that what those old guys did, some repetitively, doesn't belong in today's world of golf ?[/color]

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

Do you think it would be good for golf if every course in the world had a biarritz of the highest standards...If not...where does it stop.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

There's also something about the identifier, the label, that may cause modern day architects to reject its design.

The moment you design and build a hole similar to # 11 at The Creek, # 9 at Yale or # 13 at The Knoll, everyone, to the architect's dismay, will call it a Biarritz.

And in doing so, the element or originality is compromised in the minds of some, if not many.

Had # 17 at Pacific Dunes been a perfect Biarritz, I believe some would have said you were being unoriginal.  And therein lies the problem with the Biarritz, or any recognizable template hole...... the lack of originality, despite how well the hole may fit and function on a particular site.

Today's architects are afraid of being thougt of as UNORIGINAL, and any replications will feed that fear, hence, there's an aversion to designing recognizable holes, and I think that's unfortunate.

[Mike_Sweeney]

'When there is a unanimous opinion that such and such a hazard is perfect, one usually finds it commonplace.' C.B. Macdonald, Scotland’s Gift – Golf.

I definitely like some Biartitz's more than others, but none of them are "commonplace". I like the aerial nature of Yale and the run up nature of Mountain Lake and Piping Rock. While I understand Patrick's flexibility argument about The Creek, it is not my favorite. Fishers (uphill) and Forsgate (only the back half is green) do not play like a Biarritz. The only modern one that I have played is at Pete's Highland Reserve which is good and unique, but not great as it plays slightly uphill if I remember.

Pete Buczkowski had a post in the late summer of 7-8 that he had played this year, both modern and classic, unfortunately, I could not find it.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I understand what you're saying about a hole like the Biarritz being copied. I think you just object to the "copy-cat" thing that some architects get into just to appear to some to look like they understand golf architectural history well or something.

It's the basic concept of the Biarritz I like, and I explained why. I certainly am aware of your concern that a hole like that fit well into the look of another type of golf course.

I had one planned and designed at that Ardrossan project simply because the concept seemed to fit a particular spot in the routing. I call this kind of thing a "concept copy" meaning the essence of the concept is all there (basically the very same strategies) even if the look may not be the same.

When one stood on the tee I doubt the great big enginneered look of some Biarritzes would have occured to them. I visualized a hole with a massive green like the biarritz because the hole on this landform needed to be at least 250 yards long. But I visualized the green sort of right on natural grade (so it wouldn't visually stand out like some highly engineered looking Biarritzes) with perhaps some trench affair along the sides and somewhere before the green with the big wide swale in the center.

To actually do something like that on that landform might've been something of a drainage nightmare even if the entire landform very gradually titled left to right probably just enough to drain the whole thing well enough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Do you think it would be good for golf if every course in the world had a biarritz of the highest standards...If not...where does it stop.

How do you arrive at that extreme, if not absurd position ?

Noone ever suggested that a perfect template be inserted in EVERY golf course.

Here's what you said in your opening post

" .... after close to a century the feature still doesn't work, can't be maintained to work and offers no options from the distance it's intended to work.


Each component of your statement is incorrect.

They do work, they can be maintained to work and they do offer options from their intended distance, you just don't recognize them.

TEPaul and I never stated that a Biarritz should be inserted into every modern design, that's your extreme and convoluted response to our logical reply.

We merely refuted your statement and never expanded it to a universal mandate as you've somehow concluded.[/color]

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  Point taken.  But I think there are far more architects copying things, than resisting too strenuously.

Of course you know that the 17th at Pacific Dunes is a Redan.  We tried to build something different there first, but it just wasn't working.  Then, I made the decision that considering the length and prevailing wind [in your face, left-to-right, and strong, unlike the real Redan which is either straight into your face or straight behind], we should not put nasty bunkers behind the right of the green and just make a very difficult chip or putt from there.  And the esteemed Mr. Ran Morrissett, who is never wrong, chastised me for NOT COPYING THE REDAN BUNKERS MORE PRECISELY and making the hole too easy!!

[TEPaul]

"And the esteemed Mr. Ran Morrissett, who is never wrong, chastised me for NOT COPYING THE REDAN BUNKERS MORE PRECISELY and making the hole too easy!!"

TomD:

I'm very sorry to hear he said that to you. I verbally beat the shit out of him on the 15th when he criticized that drive as being too wide and too light on hazards and I also beat the shit out of him verbally on the 17th for actually stating these template holes should be more in the way of exact copies.

I just can't imagine why or how the large-headed wise-acre actually had the  rudeness and the guts to tell you that about PD's #17 after all that.

Frankly, you need to get to know Ran Morrissett a bit better and you'd understand why he sometimes says these ridiculous things. He really does know better, it's just when he's out there analyzing (and I do think he's remarkably good at that) he sometimes just can't think of something to say and he feels he should be constantly critiquing so he just comes up with ridiculous comments like that just for the shock value of them.

What he said to me while on your 17th is really no different from what he said to me while standing on Coore and Crenshaw's 14th hole at Sand Hills.

He asked me if I thought he should call up Bill Coore and ask him if he was aware that he totally BLEW A POTENTIALLY GREAT GOLF COURSE by not melding together a stretch of fairway between #14 and #15.

However, I was on to him by then and I just told him that would be a great question to ask Bill Coore and that he should ask him sooner rather than later.

That shut up the big-headed wise-acre for at least a hole or a hole and a half!

[paul cowley]

...as I have tried to say in an earlier post, modern or even some of the oldest biarritz greens don't necessarily have to be formal, but can be created in a more natural setting and still exibit some of the play qualities associated with the style....i.e. holes at North Berwick and Bandon Trails, and maybe even the namesake hole in France.
...or maybe these don't count and we need to only go by the more strick CBM Raynor creations when defining what a Biarritz is...is.
Regardless, I plan to keep putting deep swales in greens when appropriate.

...I'm confused though....I thought cognoscenti was a eyetalian after dinner drink  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I have to tell you that one of the neatest visuals that ever greeted me was the one I encountered as I left the 16th green at Pacific Dunes.  On the 16th green, the 17th hole is invisible.  When I climbed to the 17th tee, I was inspired by the scale and look of the hole in front of me.

I think the hole works.... marvelously.
It's scale is expansive and you know immediately that this hole is in stark contrast to the one just played..

I recognized its general form, but, that, in no way detracted from the stunning visual or the challenging and exciting play of the hole.

One gets a similar experience walking off the 3rd green at Hidden Creek.  The 4th hole isn't visible from the 3rd green, but, as you leave and round the corner, there sits a great looking hole, a Redan in form.

I don't think that the 17th at Pacific Dunes, or the 4th at Hidden Creek in any way detract from the creativity of Tom Doak or Coore & Crenshaw.  In fact, I feel just the opposite.
A redan has desireable playing qualities, and your ability to blend it into a design, at the appropriate location is a tribute to your talents.

It also allows golfers, who may not have the opportunity, to play one of the classic holes in golf.

If you should find the opportunity to create a Biarritz on one of your sites, I think most would applaud the effort.  
A Biarritz has intrinsic architectural and playing values not often found on most of the golf courses in the U.S. and I'm sure that your presentation of those values would be as outstanding as they are with your presentation of the Redan at # 17 at Pacific Dunes.

TEPaul,

You what ?

You jumped on the double fairway theme like a tick on a deer.

You and Ran lobbied for a double fairway the entire time we were at Sand Hills, not understanding the deleterious effect it would have on the play of the 15th hole, where the dune obstructs the visual and approach from the left side.

Allowing golfers to drive into what is now the right side rough on # 15 would allow golfers to by-pass the dune feature and hit safely to the right to be rewarded with an easier approach.

C & C, in their infinite wisdom inserted risk reward into the drive and approach by having deep rough on the right side.

The risk-reward concept is in full effect.
Take the riskier drive right and you're rewarded with a far more benign approach, one that provides greater visibility and a prefered angle of attack into the green that is more receptive from that angle.

Drive straight or left and you have the mound obscuring your view, rolling fairway annoying your lie and a green not necessarily receptive to your approach.

Didn't Dick Youngscap tell you and Ran to go directly to the 16th tee form the 13th green ?

[TEPaul]

Paul:

We'll fix the little red wagons of these guys who are complaining about copy-catting Biarritzes. We'll just do a natural looking one with all the usual "play" elements but rather than calling it a "Biarritz" we'll just call it "The Casino".  

Do you know what the original meaning of "casino" is?

We'll fix 'em, don't you worry!

[Michael Moore]

Pat Mucci -

Count me among the 25% who is reading Bar-Bar loud and clear.

I think that all he is saying is that the Biarritz template resonates with political capital that may or may not be appropriate for a given owner or membership.