[Dan King]

In another thread we have talked about the routing at Pebble and I've said how much I hate the backtracking now required from the green on No. 5 to the tee on No. 6.

It's a pet peeve of mine, and perhaps once again I'm in a minority. Huckaby says it doesn't bother him in the least (but then what does bother Huckaby on the golf course?) So how do others feel? Judging by many modern courses I'm probably in a minority.

Perhaps it is something internal to me. As a kid my brothers and I used to hike around in Yosemite and elsewhere in the Sierras. They loved to hike, I loved to go somewhere. The hiking for me was great because it took me some place while for them it was often about how many miles they could do in a day. Maybe Ed Getka has something to contribute here.

If a property must climb a hill, I'd much rather play a hole on my way up the hill. I really hate just marching up a hill. But thinking about it there are a couple exceptions. The marches up hills at Cruden Bay and Dornoch don't bother me so much, but maybe that is because they are in Scotland. I like to think that the hike is rewarded with a great view of the parts of the course I'm about to play, rather than the view of the holes I've already played. I think No. 14 at Bandon Trails works well that way also.  While a course in the Bay Area, Wente Vineyards, the routing takes you up the hill and all you have to look at is where you've been, much less rewarding to me.

So maybe had Pebble Beach kept a little more property, and built a little trail up the hill from No. 5 green to No. 6 tee I'd like it better. Maybe have it hidden from No. 6 by some hedges. Then I'd make the walk and come out on No. 6 tee and get the same view I used to get.

In the other thread:
I wrote:
I'd gladly put up with less than stellar holes for a great routing.
 
Rick Shefchik responded:
I don't often come across statements on this board that I so completely disagree with, but this is one of them.

I'm certainly not advocating 3/4 mile treks between green and tee, or cartball courses that have no flow whatsoever. But on an otherwise intelligently-routed golf course, I'll take the better hole over the better flow every time.

How do others feel? Are you willing to give up a great routing to get to a great hole?

Dan King

Often it is necessary to get from one section to another over ground which is not suited to easy construction, but that troublesome hole must be made to stand right up with the others. If it has nothing about it that might make it respectable, it has to have quality knocked into it until it can hold its head up in polite society.
 --A.W. Tillinghast

[JESII]

Dan,

Hopefully in a completely honest manner I ask this, as I never saw it.....Was the old fifth able to hold its head up in polite society?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ideally I lay out each green next to the middle tee - so you and I can play the 6400 yarder, and let the tiger back track to his tee.  This often allows for some yahoo to add a tee about 200 yards back if they want 5 years from now.

Someone will always back track a bit, or the ladies and seniors have long walks.

On tight properties walk backs give extra space.

I hate them, but will ignore them if the hole is good enough... it has to be really good.

That answer was almost Huckabean.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Sounds to me like you define "a routing" as something akin to close-coupled greens to next tee.

To me, like RichS, a routing is a whole lot more than just that. I too would rather not sacrifice an otherwise great hole just so it could be close-coupled to the next tee position.

In the broad scheme of golf architecture as it moves from any time into the future with what we know about distance increase the futurist-looking design conception of "elasticity" can be real important because we all know it's a whole lot better, generally speaking, to move a back tee back rather than moving a green---either the one on the hole being played or certainly the preceding one. That's why a guy like Mackenzie said if possible try to move from the preceding green forward to the next back tee (hopefully that will provide "elasticity" behind the back tee).

In my opinion, super close green to next tee commutes are sort of a function of the older pre-cart walking days and on any new course today close-coupled green to next tee commutes are definitely a luxury---and as always probably a lot harder for any architect to do simply because fitting the "jigsaw" puzzle together tight (close green to next tee commutes) is always gonna be harder than not having to do that.

[Willie_Dow]

Dan - Great to see you on here again.  Been reading the inputs, but not many as thoughtful as yours.

Agree, emphatically, about your routing at Pebble.  And when I played there last, some years ago my read was much as what you say.

Would someone come in and influence a re-routing ?

[Dan King]

JES II writes:
Hopefully in a completely honest manner I ask this, as I never saw it.....Was the old fifth able to hold its head up in polite society?

Seems it is a matter of opinion. I'd be shocked if anyone voted it their favorite hole at Pebble, but personally I like the rare uphill, blind, dogleg par-3. I wouldn't want too many, but I don't think the fifth at Pebble had ever been copied. It got you from the fourth green, up to the 6th tee.

TEPaul writes:
Sounds to me like you define "a routing" as something akin to close-coupled greens to next tee.

I don't think that is it. As I mentioned there are some hikes that don't bother me too much. To me, and ideal routing is the walk in the park. The routing following the same path as someone might want to walk to explore the site. That is part of the reason walking backwards doesn't work for me. I wouldn't hike a property that way. I want to start at point A and proceed to point B, playing some golf holes between them. I also don't like the back and forth holes often found on golf courses. At Bandon Trails there were (from memory) the seventh, eighth and ninth that just went back and forth and that was part of the weak link of Bandon Trails.

In the broad scheme of golf architecture as it moves from any time into the future with what we know about distance increase the futurist-looking design conception of "elasticity" can be real important

It may be important, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Not a lot of courses needing to get elastic for me.

Dan King

I know what you're thinking; that it sure sound strange
You talked forward so long that it's hard to change
But it's just like metric once you get the drift
You twist your tongue and give your palate
A lift.  You take your favorite phrase, read
It in the mirror, practice that about a half
A year, and then sdrawkcab gnikiat mi em ta kool
You're a regular talking bassackwards fool
Talk backwards
Talking backwards is the new sensation,
Talking backwards is sweeping the nation
You amaze your friends when you start to rap
Don't say pass the butter, say rettub eht ssap.
Rettub eht ssap?  Rettub eht ssap
And if you're out with a girl and she's a
Little bit shy don't say I love you; say
Uoy evol I. uoy evol I and I always will, Now
See if that doesn't take off the chill
Talk Backwards
 --Namdoog Evets

[TEPaul]

Dan:

If you really are defining a good routing as a good walk in the park I must say I personally don't agree with that or see it that way. I feel if someone wants to take a walk in a park then they should do just that but if they want to play an inspiring and interesting golf course they should just do that.

As far as you not caring about elasticity I guess I can understand your point but I think you should understand that most good golf courses aren't designed just for you but they are designed for you and also levels of golfer skill both above and below you. Your concern, in my opinion, should only be to play the tees that make the course most enjoyable for you.

[JESII]

Dan,

Regardless of the actual hole's (#5 original and new) and their quality, how much different is the actual "walk in the park"?

Jim

[A_Clay_Man]

Dan, In your initial quote that Rick jumped on, you use the term a great hole. In the case of Pebble Beach the new hole traverses property that while coastal, has to be the least dramatic meetings of land & sea, due to the serenity the cove provides.
Personally I feel that area, the new hole occupies, has got some serious bad Mojo attached to it. I know of one person who fell down the cliff and broke a collar bone, and, at least one person who died there. A caddie looking for balls must've fallen and hit his head on a rock. Also, if i'm not mistaken, they unearthed some remains, when they removed all those eucalyptus, behind and to the left of four green. So all in all, that place is bad medicine.

My point is, that your quote taken out of context may not be saying exactly what you meant when you said it. Does that make sense?

[ed_getka]

Dan,
   I don't think I have much to add in this case. When I have to walk I would prefer it to be more natural, thus I like the walk to #14 on Bandon Trails, but the winding cartpath at Wente just SUCKS.
    I don't particularly mind backtracking to tees on occasion. However, when I used to run/race I rarely picked courses that were out and back or multiple laps. I prefer to go point to point or in one big loop.
    I prefer courses to have good flow to their routing. One of the best examples IMO is Pacific Dunes. If you look at it on paper you have the oddest combination of holes (i.e. only 2 par 4's on the back nine), which you really don't notice when playing the course. Also, there are some pretty good walks at PD, but again you hardly notice it as you go around the course.
     I think in the case of Pebble, the walk to #6 tee wouldn't be so bad if you didn't have to go around a house.

[Sean_A]

Dan

You do ask tough questions.  

I don't really have a steadfast answer.  However, I generally don't like back tracking and I don't like walks of 100 yards to reach a tee-unless of course there is some interest to the walk, but these walks are very rare.  These days it seems as though 100 yards is not considered a long walk.  

Of my favorite courses, there are very few if any long walks.  I am prone to think that the greatness of a course is more than the golf holes.  For me, part of the joy of golf is walking and if the walk is a chore, how great can the routing be?  By chore, I mean having more than a few walks that distract from the golf.  Tobacco Road is a good example.  No matter how much I enjoy the course, it couldn't be one of my favorites because of the routing which requires tiresome walks.  

So I guess the gist of all this is that I think we are in agreement.

Ciao

Sean

 

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
If you really are defining a good routing as a good walk in the park I must say I personally don't agree with that or see it that way. I feel if someone wants to take a walk in a park then they should do just that but if they want to play an inspiring and interesting golf course they should just do that.

I'm not really clear. Are you saying that a walk in the park routing detracts from a golf course or that it doesn't matter to you?

As far as you not caring about elasticity I guess I can understand your point but I think you should understand that most good golf courses aren't designed just for you but they are designed for you and also levels of golfer skill both above and below you. Your concern, in my opinion, should only be to play the tees that make the course most enjoyable for you.

I would think before a course worried about elasticity they would spend a few days watching how their clientele play the golf course. From what I've seen a heck of a lot more people hit the ball slightly more or slightly less than the distance I hit it than the distance Tiger Woods hits it. I've spent some time as a spectator of recreational golf, and at most courses I've seen, if you park yourself at the 150 yard marker of a legitimate 400 yard hole, you will rarely see anyone reach the 150-yard marker.

Far as I'm concern they are screwing up their routing for the rare golfer who is going to show up every now and then. Of course, if I'm a rare breed and am in a small minority bothered by the walking backwards to tees or walking too far with little reward, then they need not worry. Courses can easily survive without my occasional green fee.

If I ran a course and there was the perception I needed to add elasticity to my course, I'd do it only on the score card. Add a fictitious ten yards to each of the two and three-shot holes on the card, and everyone feels better and it only cost you printing costs.

JES II writes:
Regardless of the actual hole's (#5 original and new) and their quality, how much different is the actual "walk in the park"?

Like I've said, I think the walking backwards screws up the "walk in the park" for me big time. I also don't get the impact of coming around the hedge and seeing the view from the sixth tee. Walking up the fairway to the tee, you don't get the suddenness of the view.

Adam Clayman writes:
Dan, In your initial quote that Rick jumped on, you use the term a great hole. In the case of Pebble Beach the new hole traverses property that while coastal, has to be the least dramatic meetings of land & sea, due to the serenity the cove provides.

Perhaps it was. I'm too lazy to go back and look. But even the small portion Rick quotes I agree with myself. I don't like courses that are 18 signature holes. I want some great holes and some other respectable holes that get me to the great holes. There is a place in this world for the Ramones, but there is also a place for Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

Dan King

Course built for 300 yard tee shot artists are not great course.
  --Peter Thomson

[TEPaul]

"I'm not really clear. Are you saying that a walk in the park routing detracts from a golf course or that it doesn't matter to you?"

Dan:

Before I answer that why don't you tell me what exactly 'a walk-in-the-park' golf course routing is?

I've walked in plenty of parks in my life and I've played plenty of different types of golf courses but I'm not all that sure what you think the connection is. Do you happen to favor a particular style of golf course setting or design sometimes referred to as "Parkland"?

[ForkaB]

I'm with you, Dano

One of my bittersweet GCA moments was playing a well known track for the first time, walking off the 1st green towards the obvious tee and then being directed 50 yards back into the trees by mein hosts because "There are some new tees and want you to see the whole course."  I said I wasn't bothered by playing the normal tees, but they insisted, and I deferred to them as a polite guest should.  As much as I loved that course and my playing companions, it was jarring to so frequently have to swim back against the flow of the course to a set of tees that were built just to "Tiger Proof" it from some infintessimally small number of golfers.  That course used to be known for its routing, but I doubt if it still is, if one honestly thinks of how it plays from the back tees......

[JESII]

Rich, that particular one may now be called a hard-hat routing because of the need for that type of equipment if you're there on a normal members day. Of course I am guessing at the one you are talking about, but I think I'm right.

[Tom Huckaby]

These are great questions, Dan.

And sticking to the general - because I assume we can and will continue to battle it out about Pebble specifically on the other thread, or perhaps better, just let it die - I haven't looked at that one yet this morning - well my take isn't as different from yours as you seem to think.

I took look at each golf round as an adventure, and love surprises.  

I just don't think my imagination is poor enough that a little backtrek ruins the surprise!

AND.... to me golf remains all in the playing of it, not the hike.  If I wanted to hike, I'd follow Getka to Yosemite.  I'm on a golf course 99.5% of the time TO PLAY GOLF (there's that 0.5% left for romantic interludes and the like  ).

SO... sure, I too don't need 18 signature holes.  And if a lesser hole is required to get one to the next hole in the best fashion, then that is for the best.

Just if a much better golf hole is right there, right where one would walk anyway, without traversing around someone's backyard and hedges... and all it means to utilize this golf hole is a little backtrek on one freakin' tee... well I can live with the backtrek.  I sure can't think of any examples of this - it's purely hypothetical.  

In any event, this is all in the degrees.  No one backtrek is going to ruin a golf course for me (but yes, not much can make that happen anyway).  If a SERIES of backtreks is required - hole after hole - then that's not gonna add to my enjoyment, let's just say.

But one backtrek ruins an entire routing?  That I don't get.  ESPECIALLY when it makes so many other good things happen - not that I can think of any examples of that, oh no....

 

There's also just one thing I don't get:  no hole can be visible besides the one you are on?  It seems all of your opinions here are based on that.  So is 18 Pebble ruined for you because you can see it if you turn your head to the right walking up to 17 green?

Set me straight, oh great one.

TH

[George Pazin]

Ideally I lay out each green next to the middle tee - so you and I can play the 6400 yarder, and let the tiger back track to his tee.  This often allows for some yahoo to add a tee about 200 yards back if they want 5 years from now.

This comment has just guaranteed that I will seek out a Mike Nuzzo course as soon as possible!

One of my biggest pet peeves of the whole multiple tees theory is that, if I am to play the proper tees for my level, it totally destroys the walk - ie. playing the 6500 tees still results in walking the 7300 yard course.

-----

As an aside, people often say "I would not pass up a great hole for fear of a long walk", but doesn't this sometimes strike one as excuse making? Isn't one of the primary goals of a superior routing to avoid just such an instance? I think many are too quick to forsake good flow in favor of the superior hole, when a little more thinking might solve both problems.

I'm hard pressed to think of a long walk that I actually liked, or even didn't mind. The vast majority of times it simply destroys the flow of a course. (Obviously, this does not include things like the walks at Cape Breton Highlands. It's the exception that proves the rule!)

I, too, prefer to play an uphill hole to a long walk, Dan. I'm guessing you are in the minority on this one, but it's at least a minority of 2.

 

P.S. Nice to be able to agree with Rich at least occasionally.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

How far would you take this?

Would you insert an inferior uphill golf hole in a course just to avoid 50 yards worth of backtrek from a front tee to a back tee?

Concrete fantasy example:  Pebble Beach.  No houses or private property exists.  You've routed 1-4.  Would you turn #5 inland and up a hill, leaving a beautiful cove unused, just so you can make 500+ yard hole out of #6?

I dunno man... methinks I'd follow the cove, put 6 tee down by the water, make a shorter hole out of 6.  And if the powers that be insisted on a par five, well I'd try to talk them out of it, but I'd live with 50 yards or so worth of backtrek.

I really think this is all a matter of degrees.  If you're gonna tell me to put 6 tee way up by 14 green, well that's a backtrek that makes no cool golfhole worth doing.  But this tiny backtrek?

I remain puzzled.

And curious how far others take this loathing of backtreks.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Mike N:  It is a lot easier to locate the greens and tees close together on a flat map, than it is in 3-D in the field.  Either you put the greens close to the tops of ridges for uphill approaches, or you play tee shots that might be semi-blind, or you walk from every low green to the next high tee.  To be able to make the connections seamlessly in rolling topography is the mark of excellent routing, and it is absolutely a lost art nowadays because so many gca's just rely on cart paths to solve their problem, and say "it's all about the individual holes!"

Dan K:  Totally agree with you about the walk back to 6 at Pebble.  I don't mind making the good player walk back to a back tee sometimes like the example Rich provided, but U-turn routings have no flow at all.  Querencia in Cabo had these all over the place ... a cart path cul-de-sac to every other tee.  A routing should keep making progress toward the final goal.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Woohoo!  The heavyweights are pouring it on featherweight Huckaby.  But the little guy won't give up....

Tom D:  yes, in a vacuum, that walk from 5 green to 6 tee at Pebble isn't a good thing.  But in the overall, doesn't the flow work better?  Or in a fantasy world would you have left the quirky at best old #5 as it was, just to avoid this backtrek?

Remember this is just fantasy world.  I just remain very puzzled at how horrible tiny backtreks like this are to people.  Me, I look at the big picture.

 

[George Pazin]

Huck, I could ask you the same type of question:

Would you put in a half mile backtrack to get to a "better" hole, even if it is only marginally so?

There's no way of asking these questions without specific, concrete examples, and intimate knowledge of the holes in question, as well as the relevant options.

I'm simply saying that I value the flow of a course very very much, and I hate to see it disrupted for want of a more signature-type hole.

Does adding 50 yards to a hole really change it practically, for the players that are playing the hole on that back tee? Probably not. For Tiger and most of the rest of the big boys, there isn't much difference between a 370 yard hole and a 450 yard hole, unless they really botch their tee shot. Sad, but that's the state of the game. That is what the technophobes are fighting.

[JESII]

How long was the walk from the old 5th green to the 6th regular tee? How about from the new 5th green?

Is the walk from 4 green to new 5th tee any different than the old 5th tee?

Do these questions have a place in balancing out a routing question?

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck, I could ask you the same type of question:

Would you put in a half mile backtrack to get to a "better" hole, even if it is only marginally so?

There's no way of asking these questions without specific, concrete examples, and intimate knowledge of the holes in question, as well as the relevant options.

I'm simply saying that I value the flow of a course very very much, and I hate to see it disrupted for want of a more signature-type hole.

Does adding 50 yards to a hole really change it practically, for the players that are playing the hole on that back tee? Probably not. For Tiger and most of the rest of the big boys, there isn't much difference between a 370 yard hole and a 450 yard hole, unless they really botch their tee shot. Sad, but that's the state of the game. That is what the technophobes are fighting.

George:  understood.  So we are in agreement.  This is a matter of degrees, and the golf course as a whole must be considered.

So with that in mind, it is patently obvious that Pebble Beach is a better golf course with the new #5.  

 

[Tom Huckaby]

How long was the walk from the old 5th green to the 6th regular tee? How about from the new 5th green?
I may not be exactly right about this, but it was a fairly long walk - I'd say 50 yards at least - you continued around the back of the guy's house, along his hedges, through some trees.  It was really neat how then #6 burst out before you, once you cleared this walk.

Is the walk from 4 green to new 5th tee any different than the old 5th tee?
YES - the old way you turned to your left and there was the tee.  The new way you continue in a straight line from how you had played #4, and the back tee is right there - in fact dangerously close to 4 green.  The up tees are on the other side of a bridge, across a little chasm.  No editorial comments as to which is "better" - judge for yourself.

Do these questions have a place in balancing out a routing question?
Heck yeah.  Of course re Pebble, the realities of history need to be kept in mind.  It's well documented that the intent of the golf course was to go how it is now - they just couldn't buy back that parcel of land where #5 is now... it took 80 years for that to settle itself.  But that being said, Adam makes a good point that 80 years of tradition shouldn't easily cast aside.  Lot's to consider re Pebble.

TH

[George Pazin]

Does anyone else find it sad that the owner of the land for the new #5 held out his whole life, only to have his heirs sell out in the blink of an eye? I wonder if he told them it was okay to sell after he was gone. I hope so.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()