Why should a first hole be easy?

[John Kavanaugh]

I think this is one of the great flaws in classic architectural theory.  Is it a myth and what good comes from giving a guy a break right off the bat.

Also, besides Oakmont where are the tough classic era starters out there in the world?

[Garland Bayley]

Anyone thinking a first hole has to be easy is a bit balmy, or barmy as they say in England.

The first hole can be as difficult as can be as long as it has a wide flat fairway, a bunkerless green, and minimal contours in the green.

[TEPaul]

"Also, besides Oakmont where are the tough classic era starters out there in the world?"  

Pine Valley. At app 430 yards from the tips it's not all that long by modern standards (compared to Oakmont's 485 yards from the tips) but the green-end is one of the most potentially penal there is.

The rationale for easy first holes is extremely well known and has been written about prevalently.

One should remember that rationale of easy-ish, "get into the round" first holes of many of the older pre WW2 courses took into consideration that most golf courses of that early era did not have "warm up" or practice ranges.
 
 

[Mark_F]

I don't think it should be easy.

But it is nice if it gives the appearance of being relatively benign, but there are subtleties which catch out anyone not paying attention and you walk off with a 5 or 6, espeically if it's a green where to hit at the flag from the incorrect angle is likely to send a ball way offline.

Tends to get players steamed right off the bat, too, which can only ever be a good thing.

[Jeff Doerr]

I agree with the old school idea that the first should welcome you into the round.

It does not have to be easy, but it should be playable for the early morning golfer who wants to tee off at first light. There can be exceptions or tees for tourney play, but as a general rule it is a good thing to get groups moving through the first hole or two.

Having a bruiser for the first tells the golfer that they should show up to the course at least an hour early for range and practice green work, and plan on a 6 hour round on the weekend. So, a round of golf ends up being a whole day venture. I guess that works on a regular basis if you are single with no kids. The Erin Hills thread warned against going there on the weekend...

[Adam Clayman]

Since driving ranges are in vogue you have a point. Otherwise courses built prior to the trend (or is it a requisite now?) starting with the number one handicap is retarded.

[Jon Wiggett]

Difficult starting holes are a plus if you ask me. I mean, having just pulled up in the car park 2 minutes before your start time, no warm up, shoe laces undone and out of breath it is better to drop a shot on a difficult hole that would have probably cost a you a shot later on in the round, than an easy birdie hole.

[Jim Nugent]

Number one at ANGC this year averaged 4.4744 strokes per round.  2nd toughest hole in the tournament.  That is a bit higher than usual.  But the overall average, in all Masters, is about 4.25, and the field has never averaged under par on this hole.  

[Jordan Wall]

I dont think that an opening hole should be easy, however it should not be too hard either.


A nice hole which gives the oppurtunity for a birdie while a missed shot could result in bogey is my type of opening hole.  I like Kapalua, because missed shots tend to be on the extremely large green, and though the player will have a chance at 3 or 4, a long putt with greens with such contours makes a two putt from long distance hard, especially on the first hole.  I also like the fact the hole is beautiful, downwind, and with a huge fairway.  A great opener, imo, with many qualities of a good opening hole.

I have never played TOC but that first hole would seem to have the same qualities as mentioned for Kapalua #1.

[Tom_Doak]

The first hole at Crystal Downs is about as tough as they come.  I really don't mind it at all ... I would just as soon play that hole with the thought that I'm okay making 5 to start, instead of thinking I ought to make a 4 right out of the box because the architect saved the hard hole for #2.

There are lots of tough openers in championship golf.  Oak Hill (East) is one of the toughest.  Oakland Hills (South).  Oak Tree.  The Prince Course has one of the toughest, but I thought that hole was beyond the pale ... I don't want to lose a ball on #1.

[Mike Policano]

The first at Seccesion is a tough opener. You have to hit over a swamp, choose how much to bite off and to a fairway that looks as wide as the walking path from the tee.

[Tom_Doak]

By the same token, John, I like starting off a course with a short par-4.  No pressure for the average player to make his 4, but a good player would normally think of that as a birdie hole, and maybe even a 4 gets him in a foul mood right off the bat ... in line with Tom Paul's other current thread.

The short par-4 starter at Lost Dunes is my favorite starting hole that I've built to date.  The first at Pacific Dunes works the same way but the tee shot is much tougher.  I've also started a lot of courses with par-5 holes, even though in theory I agree with Bill V. on that subject.

[Mike_Clayton]

Nick Faldo had - and I assume still has - a view that he liked difficult opening holes because he wants to reward the guy who has bothered to warm up properly.

The first at Kingston Heath is a pretty tough start.

[John Kavanaugh]

Pace of play. A great golf course can and does start with anything. Getting players onto the course moving quickly is a real plus if the course is busy.  If there's little play it makes no difference at all.


Nothing gets the day off badly (slowly)  better than a reachable par 5 ( or a really tough par 4) followed by a really tough par 3.

The tough 4 tough 3 combo is no better chronicled than at Cog Hill #4.

I think I would rather wait on the first tee than any tee on the course.

[TEPaul]

To go back to the tough first hole at PVGC, I should mention that the first at Hoylake was something of a prototype for PV's opener, and the other very much intended purpose of PV's #1 was to create a dangerous opener to deal swiftly and effectively with playoffs. My sense is that the latter purpose has worked extremely well over the years.

For instance, if you have six players going down #1 in even something like the Crump Cup the odds are that no more than half of them will play #1 in par or better. But the really interesting thing about this hole used as a playoff hole is if you have a really big playoff. Then you have to start calculating if a bogey will get you to #2 since #1 in playoffs always seems to create a fair number of "others". Frankly creating a fair number of "others' may've had something to do with why that green was built the way it was.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have on occasion..much more often when I was younger, but no less than even twice last year played the first hole so poorly that me and my opponent have agreed to go back and start the round a new.  Can't really do that as easy deeper in the round.

[John Kavanaugh]

By the same token, John, I like starting off a course with a short par-4.  No pressure for the average player to make his 4, but a good player would normally think of that as a birdie hole, and maybe even a 4 gets him in a foul mood right off the bat ... in line with Tom Paul's other current thread.

The short par-4 starter at Lost Dunes is my favorite starting hole that I've built to date.  The first at Pacific Dunes works the same way but the tee shot is much tougher.  I've also started a lot of courses with par-5 holes, even though in theory I agree with Bill V. on that subject.

I have even complained the that the first at Quail Crossing is too hard.  If I had known that the first at Crystal Downs was so difficult I doubt if I would have considered it a flaw.

[Chris_Clouser]

I second Tom Doak's mention of Crystal Downs.  I think we discussed this when the Oakmont series came up.  It is a difficult, but wonderful hole.

To me the first course should do one thing, introduce you to the course in a fashion that gives you an idea of what to expect from a stylistic point of view.  The first at Crystal does that.  Another that does it extremely well close to me is the Nicklaus course at the Sagamore.  Playing that hole is a fine introduction to the style of architecture you will see on the course.  

Tom Doak,

I'm curious about something.  Hypothetically, if you had a course with two loops of nine and and one begins with a short par four, but there are no other such holes around the course, would you make the short hole your opener or make it the tenth?

I would think in the middle as it gives the higher handicapper a chance to breath in the middle of the round instead of them feeling the pressure from the second tee through the rest of the round.  It's a scenerio at a course close to me and I'm curious what you would have done in that instance to see how different architects would handle the situation.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

# 1 at WFW and Plainfield are fairly difficult tests.

I like short first holes that aren't overly difficult that offer some challenge, be it a par 5 or par 4.

# 1 at GCGC and NGLA come to mind.
As do # 1 at Baltusrol, upper and lower.

They have a forgiving nature.

Many golfers don't warm up and a shorter, forgiving hole gives them an opportunity to do so.

One should view the question in the context of the predominance of rounds played by the average golfer and not the few rounds played by the PGA Tour Pro

[Andy Troeger]

I grew up playing a course that opened with a 465 yard par 4 (converted from a 5), so I'm used to and don't mind starting with a difficult hole.

Crystal Downs #1 is probably the best/most inspiring opener I've seen. I also really like #1 at Kingsley Club and Wolf Run, both of which give you an idea of what the course is about right from the start.

[Dan Boerger]

The first at Aronimink is no easy start. Also, I would include the first at Gulph Mills as challenging.

[jim_lewis]

If it's a par four, just be sure there is someplace you can miss the green with your second shot and still get away with a bogey. I don't like first hole at the National Golf Club in Pinehurst because if you miss the green, you are looking at double bogey. (Actually, I don't like the rest of the course either!).

I can live with a bogey on the first hole (lot's of experience), but a double just ruins my day!

Another thing, let me hit my driver off the first tee. I don't like opening holes that call for anything less. Afterall, that's the one club that we usually are sure to hit on the range before we play.

Jim Lewis

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am in the camp that the first hole should be moderately long to keep play moving, but the features shouldn't be back breakers.  

For example, on a current remodel, I have put chocolate drop mounds right of the green instead of sand to right of the green as a small concession to speed of play for the average players who populate the course.  The green will be relatively flat, as well.

On the other hand, I can also think of several first holes on my designs that aren't really much different that other holes difficulty wise. I put spectacle bunkers in front of the first at the Quarry, because I had never done a green like that before, and the first at Indian Creek in Texas has a bunker patterned loosely after 10 at Augusta, because it looked right.  Fortune Bay starts with a plus 600 yard par 5 with double fw at both first and second landing areas.  

Those did well in the "Best New" rankings.  I think the ratings game kind of drives more exciting first holes than in days past. Given that raters typically rate based on one visit, and knowing that in a speech, I have (statistically) 17 seconds to grab an audiences attention or lose them for the entire presentation, I have to wonder if starting out with some kind of "wow" is necessary to attaining good reviews these days.

Just an idle, before coffee sunday morning thought.......and tomorrow, I am going out to that project and "punching up" that first hole!

[Tim Bert]

By the same token, John, I like starting off a course with a short par-4.  No pressure for the average player to make his 4, but a good player would normally think of that as a birdie hole, and maybe even a 4 gets him in a foul mood right off the bat ... in line with Tom Paul's other current thread.

The short par-4 starter at Lost Dunes is my favorite starting hole that I've built to date.  The first at Pacific Dunes works the same way but the tee shot is much tougher.  I've also started a lot of courses with par-5 holes, even though in theory I agree with Bill V. on that subject.

In 6 rounds at Pacific Dunes, the 1st plays the hardest relative to par for me.  I've never made a par there, and I've had 4 rounds with double bogey or worse.  It has frustrated me to no end because it appears to be so straight forward.  I've taken everything from 3-wood to 6-iron off the tee.  I've been EVERYWHERE on that hole in those 37 strokes (huge dune to the right off the tee, way left, lost in the rough patch hidden over the hill through the fairway, huge dune overlooking the green, duffed tee shot 15 yards in thick rough between tees, etc.)  It's been the key reason I didn't break 90 on that course more than once.   It's safe to say the hole is in my head.  Along with 3 and 6, it is one of only three holes on the course where I haven't made par.

I don't mind a challenging first hole but I don't think it should be one of the two or three most difficult on the course (I'm back on topic now and not intending to imply that's the case with PD #1 just because it plays hadest for me as I fully realize this isn't the case.)

The first hole can set the tone for the entire round, and for the weak-minded amongst us it can really make for a miserable day when the first hole kicks your butt too badly.

[Jerry Kluger]

As I noted on TEP's thread, I thought the 1st at Sand Hills had too difficult of a tee shot and the rest of the hole is also very intense.

Tom: I agree with you about the opening hole at the Prince - you just don't know what's going on and the shot into the green is very awkward.