[Jordan Wall]

What are the good qualities of a good opening hole??

What should the opening hole of a course present to the golfer??

And, should the tenth hole be just as good of an opening hole as the first hole, saying the front nine returns to the clubhouse??

[Tim Gavrich]

Jordan--

For Donald Ross, it seems the most appropriate term for opening holes would be 'firm handshake.'  This concept is outlined in the book "Golf, as it Was Meant to be Played."  I find this approach quite attractive.  I do not think that the first hole should be the easiest, as the concept of a 'warmup hole' implies that the hole need not require as much thought in design as the others.  It seems like a wasted opportunity.  Conversely, the first hole also needn't be the most grueling, as that might sour golfers.  Consider it a hearty appetizer; filling, but not overwhelmingly so, and leaving room for the main course (no pun intended).

Most importantly, in my estimation, the opening hole should contain elements of the rest of the course.  The designer should do everything possible to keep from misleading the player.  

I like the idea of starting off with a strong par 5, because it presents a birdie opportunity while forcing the player to commit himself/herself for three full shots, typically.  On the other hand, starting a course off with a one-shotter--à la Royal Lytham & St. Anne's--is a good contrarian play that I would like to see more often.  It is something of a gambit on the part of the designer.  It could excite the player who loves his driver by making him wait a hole to hit it.

The truth of the matter is that the opening hole, above all, must be a sensible fit with the rest of the golf course.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Using the Donald (Ross, not Trump) as an example is a good one. I will never forget the first time I stepped on to a Donald Ross course--Plainfield CC, and I have a lot to thank Redanman for that because for years before he kept on telling me just how good Plainfield was as course, but also just how good the 1st is there. He couldn't have been more accurate.

It was an epiphany of sorts when I saw that first green. In fact, I think we had about a 5 to 10 minute putting session after we had holed out there. That was the beginning of an even broader school of architecture for me. The quirkiness of the Ross putting complex, built into the side of a rather large mound and how the ball would roll all over the place with the subtle but very readible contours.

[peter_p]

Is there any difference in designing a first hole if a driving range is not available? I think that the concept of the first hole easing you into the round may have started because of the lack of practice areas at British (and early American?) courses.

[archie_struthers]

My preference would be that #1 isn't too penal so as to promote pace of play right from jump street.

If one plays slow it sets the tone in some cases, also a good reason not to have a par three too early in the round.

[TEPaul]

Jordan:

A good opening hole can be a huge spectrum of things. It just depends what the club or architect wants to accomplish.

PVGC's #1 is really good and very hard but Crump had a specific reason to make it that way and he worked on it for a number of years to get it the way he wanted it. Very interestingly he never had the chance to do all he intended to do on it and so it was never completed the way he wanted it.

[Voytek Wilczak]

One word (or is it three?): TOC.

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan:

From a former public course starter's viewpoint, the opener should be a shorter affair (driver - wedge is ideal) where the green is visible from the tee.

No starter should ever let a group tee of until the group in front has reached the green (or their second shots in the case of an opening par 5).

A driver-wedge hole is ideal because it puts to relatively quickly executed shots (the far tee shot, and a short pitch) into the players' hands immediately, getting them out to the green as quickly as possible.

I also like openers with tricky greens and many different hole locations.

[Ted Kramer]

I like the word smooth to define a good opener.
Easy isn't really what I'm after, but I don't like anything to jarring to open a round with.

Bethpage Black, Shinnecock, and Spyglass all have relatively different, but similarly "smooth" openers. I think all three of those first holes are great openers.

-Ted

[Tom Dunne]

Of all the numbers, you would have to think that of the great holes in the world, #1s would be the least represented. They're just so rare. I've never played Machrihanish, but what a thrill that first shot must be. Closer to home, Bethpage Red has a terrific opening hole.  (Better than the Black's even, in my mind....)

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

The great thing about Bethpage Red's opener (I'm with you in that camp) is that it is so natural. I played the Blue this past Tuesday and when looking across the field (like a good buckeye) at the hole (no flag in the green) you couldn't make out any features and the ground just looks so undisturbed.

The only reason I knew where the hole was is because I've played it!

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan:

From a former public course starter's viewpoint, the opener should be a shorter affair (driver - wedge is ideal) where the green is visible from the tee.

No starter should ever let a group tee of until the group in front has reached the green (or their second shots in the case of an opening par 5).

A driver-wedge hole is ideal because it puts to relatively quickly executed shots (the far tee shot, and a short pitch) into the players' hands immediately, getting them out to the green as quickly as possible.

I also like openers with tricky greens and many different hole locations.

You must want to play NGLA real bad.
 
From what I hear that hole pretty much is your exact definiton of a good opener.

[Forrest Richardson]

I wrote about this once...

"There is debate on how best to start off a golf course. A majority of golf course architects feel that the relatively easy-going par 4 is best, and in fact, most courses do begin with a par 4. But this is not a rule, nor should it be. George Thomas subscribed to the idea that a par-5 first hole of shorter length was best. He then followed this with a long par 4. His feeling was that getting started required length to span out the golfers and give them plenty of room in which to whale away at the ball. The argument against the Thomas theory is that the shortish par 5 is bound to leave some groups waiting to reach the green with their second shots. The long par-4 second presents the same problem. Some golfers will reach it in two easily, while others will play it as if it were a short par 5. The best advice is to read the opinions and advice of Bill Yates, an expert in the pace of play. My money is with Yates, who has spent a lifetime studying these issues."

Technically, from a pace point of view, a medium-length or short par-3 is best because it regulates golfers — all skill levels can usually reach the green area at the same pace. But few owners like this and few architects believe it.

Yates pushes for a non-reachable par-4, but not too long that it sometimes can house four groups and other times just three. That creates havoc. He also will put his stamp of approval on a par-5 so long as it is not usually reachable in two...that can create havoc, too.

But...these are just pace issues. They should hardly dictate design in total. Personally, I like to begin with something rather straight-forward, yet interesting.

The late David Gill used to say that it was important to get the golfer right out into the best part of the land — "show them what you've got!". Spyglass does this early. He used it as an example.

[Ryan Farrow]

Chalk me up for a short par 4 for all the reasons stated above.

How about one without fairway bunkers depending on the terrain? The green on the other hand should be interesting and the fairway not so flat to make up for the lack of bunkers.

[David Neveux]

I always like to start off the round with a decent chance at a birdie or par however these holes don't seem to be very memorable.  Some of the most memorable opening holes I've played tend to be more difficult holes.  Two of my favorites would be the first at Crystal Downs (430 yrd. par 4, played from an elevated tee, into a stiff breeze) and the first at Greywalls (probably my favorite opening hole i've played anywhere).  A lengthy downhill par 5 with tons of room off the tee and a tricky approach to a tough little green which i failed to hit in regulation twice.  

[Jesse Jones]

I believe Pete Dye called the opening holes for his courses, A Gentleman's Handshake.

I wouldn't mind a tough hole to begin a round.
However, a mid to long Par 4 with no water and few trees would help. Just vanilla, please. Pete Dye's Bulle Rock and Ross' Pinehurst #2 are perfect examples.

I can't count the times I've played courses with water on the first hole, only to watch player after player, in group after group, knock the ball in the water, re-tee and do it all again. What makes it worse..There's the so-called starter, gut over belt and clipboard in hand, laughing after every splash with his buddies.. Hey, who wants to start a round with a penalty shot. And who wants to start a round 25 min. after their tee time.

Trees are just as bad..No one wants to lose a ball on the first hole..So, the same golfer who 15 min. ago was cursing another golfer for spending 20 min. to look for a lost ball, is now partaking in the same pointless effort.

And for the love of God, don't make the next hole a
220 yd. Par 3 with any type of hazard. Then folks either get real discouraged, or if they happen to hit the green, turn into Ben Crane on the green. Gotta make the Birdie you know..

Just Ranting..

[Gerry B]

i suppose there are 2 schools of thought:

1) start with a fairly easy par 4 (in comparison with the rest of the course) or a reachable par 5 - where one's round is not ruined out of the gate if the opening tee shot is a clunker

courses that fit this mold would include:

pebble
olympic
capilano
olympic
pacific dunes
riviera
shoreacres

or

2) bring it on right out of the gate

course that fit this mold would include:

aronomink
lionhead in toronto (a brute)
oak hill east
chicago golf club - the 1st of 4 tough opening holes

i prefer option # 1

[mike_malone]

When I think of several first holes that I like a commonality emerges. NGLA,Llanerch,Torresdale/Frankford, and Rolling Green have fairly straightforward drives that reward proper placement for that day's pin placement. Then a challenging short shot is required followed by an interesting putting surface that introduces you to the course.

 You are told right away that drives can be off line but you will be challenged for it.The three courses  can learn from NGLA that more space enhances these holes and courses.

[Doug Siebert]

I kind of like a mid length par 4, where you choose between a fairly easy iron or fairway wood off the tee if you want to start slow and perhaps leave yourself an 8 or 9 iron at the green, or take a driver but have a much tougher target if you want to get aggressive and only have a SW or LW left.

I don't think the first hole should be a walk in the park, unless that's pretty much what the rest of the course is.  And the first shouldn't be really tough, unless that describes the rest of the course.  But #1 should NEVER be in the top three toughest holes on the course under any circumstances!

(says the guy who never warms up before the first tee...)

[Jason Blasberg]

A great opening hole (sorry but life is too short for just good) should combine width and strategy.  

It should give the player the option of hitting driver but also permit a fairway wood or long iron, since it is the first hole a player should have the option of playing safe until the blood starts flowing.  

It should reward a bold line of play with a birdie chance and should force the safe play to struggle for par.  

The best 1st hole I've ever played is #1 at Cuscowilla, in fact, it's one of the most beguiling holes I've ever played period!!  

The second best 1st hole I've ever played is #1 at Prairie Dunes and the 3rd best #1 hole I've ever played is at Shinnecock.

[Jason Blasberg]

BTW,

The 10th hole should be hard as nails to make all those eating hot dogs at the turn puke, or, at minimum have bad heart burn!!

Seriously, the round begins on the first tee, forget the back nine starts so I see absolutely no need for the 1st and 10th to be similar and, in fact, I would likely find it pedestrian.  

Although, the 10th hole at Cuscowilla also combines width and strategy . . . .  

[Tim Gavrich]

What about a starting par 3?  Does taking driver out of everyone's hands to begin violate all that is sacred and proper in GCA?  I frankly would like to see more of it.  For a little change of pace, if nothing else.

[Jim Nugent]

Do any top courses start with a par 3?  Can't think of any that host PGA tournaments.  

[Ted Kramer]

A great opening hole (sorry but life is too short for just good) should combine width and strategy.

It should give the player the option of hitting driver but also permit a fairway wood or long iron, since it is the first hole a player should have the option of playing safe until the blood starts flowing.

It should reward a bold line of play with a birdie chance and should force the safe play to struggle for par.

The best 1st hole I've ever played is #1 at Cuscowilla, in fact, it's one of the most beguiling holes I've ever played period!!

The second best 1st hole I've ever played is #1 at Prairie Dunes and the 3rd best #1 hole I've ever played is at Shinnecock.

I've been quite interested in Cuscowilla for a while, now I'm even more intrigued. A better opening hole than Shinnecock is not easy to produce, I'd really love to see it. Any chance you have pics?

-Ted

[Jason Blasberg]

Ted:

Check out Ran's review.  I don't have any pics as I'm digitally challenged.  However, some of the folks at a couple of Dixie Cup's ago have posted in the past.  
     

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()