Local knowledge

[BCrosby]

Charles Ambrose, as part of a series of essays on golf architecture published between 1925 and 1926, says that a mark of a good hole is that local knowledge is necessary to play it well. Ambrose thought that good holes required multiple plays and even then might not fully reveal their secrets. He clearly had TOC in mind, among some other courses.

Conversely, he thought the mark of a mediocre hole is where the best way to play it is obvious to the first time player. I take it that this would apply to obvious strategic options and as well as typical penal designs that dictated play.

Joshua Crane and others responded that, no, good holes make the rewards and punishments of any shot transparent - because that was the best way to test golf skills.

The role (or not) of local knowledge is an interesting way of getting at some pretty fundamental issues.

Bob
 

[Jon Wiggett]

For me the better holes are those requiring local knowledge. This coupled with an option for a golfer to play it to his strengths and allow for his weaknesses. Holes that require just one type of shot are okay but should only be used sparingly as they become boring with repetition.

[Craig Disher]

Crane must have loved Rye.

In the long run I think his view has prevailed with so many modern courses "having it all out there in front of you."

[Adam Clayman]

Bob, Thanx again for the thought provoking post. Hopefully it won't be wasted on the belt notchers in the crowd.

 Perhaps that's why Cadet's are, or should be, an integral part of any quality course?

The number of words needed to convey the strategies of the shot, or hole, is also a measurable factor. Fewer words, less quality. More words, more options equals a better hole.

[BCrosby]

Jon/Craig -

I'd bet that virtually everyone who was given the Ambrose/Crane choice would opt for Ambrose.

Which only deepens the mystery as to why so many courses are built or set-up these days following the Crane model.

Golf may not be the only human enterprise that has a gap between what people say they want and what they actually do, but the gap in golf is a very big one.

Bob

[Tom Huckaby]

I believe it all comes down to what one wants out of the game:  is one in it for the journey, or the end result?

It certainly makes sense that if one plays the game for a living - or otherwise is very tied either emotionally or otherwise to his SCORE (or match result), then the less figuring out required the better since it really should be all about the test of one's golf skills.

But if one does play the game with a mind toward enjoying the mental test or other facets of it beyond the direct reward for correctly striking the ball, well.... then the more difficult a hole is to figure out, the more fun it will be.

I don't think either side is necessarily WRONG; I just really do believe it's just two very different ways to look at the game.

I fall in with the whimsical myself.  I've said many times in here and elsewhere that the tougher a hole is to figure out, the greater it is by my reckoning.

But I've also played some competitive golf where I got my ass kicked on an unfamiliar course by golfers of seemingly lesser skill - their local knowledge helped them tremendously.  At times like that it's tough not to give a nod to Crane.

TH
(a belt-notcher, but hopefully allowed to comment here)

[BCrosby]

Crane must have loved Rye.

Crane rated Sandwich, Deal and Princes, but didn't drive up the road to Rye. Or if he did, he held his tongue. I think you are on to something.

[Tom Huckaby]

I also think Adam brings up an interesting side question about caddies.

Most of the truly great, great courses do offer such.

They obviously help the visitor get the most out of his first (or perhaps only) playing - especially if there are quite a few of these "local knowledge" type golf holes.

But my personal preference is to figure things out on my own.  That is, I surely don't begrudge using a caddie, and in fact enjoy it in my many guest forays... But if I were a member at a great course like this, I'd likely rarely use one, preferring to do things on my own.

Don't get shivas started on the use of caddies in general, btw.

 

[Jon Wiggett]

As an 18 hole play off will always be prefered over sudden death by the player of greater skill and ability so a hole which offers multiple ways of playing it and require some thought will also be prefered over the hole that requires a one dimensional playing format.

Tom,

having local knowledge SHOULD be an advantage

[Jimmy Muratt]

I find that often times ignorance is bliss....the easiest you will ever see a great hole is the first time you play it and you're truly unaware of all the trouble that lurks.  Once you reach the green or finish the hole, you look back and see all of the danger that awaited a slightly misplayed shot.   Hence, repeated play is more difficult as you now think about the trouble.

Just like the pros, dictate what they need to do and most of the time they can do it easily...make them start to think and that's when they run into trouble (at least most of them)...

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

having local knowledge SHOULD be an advantage

Jon:  I agree in general. It is however sometimes tough to take at courses where there are no caddies or other helps for the visitor, that's all.

It's a hell of a great topic with no easy answers, I think.

TH

[Andy Troeger]

I'm not totally convinced by my own opinion on this one, but I think most of the great holes I've played are great the first time around and continue to remain great over the course of subsequent plays.

I'd give more points to a hole that gets MORE interesting the more times you play it than the other way around. There's something to be said for courses/holes that play differently in differing conditions/winds.

Even on holes that have many options, I believe over time the golfer figures out what works best for his/her game and sticks with that. The variety in such a thing might be laying back off the tee when the pin is in location A while being agressive toward pin location B. Even a hole like #14 at Black Mesa which can be played 4-5 different ways at least, I think I would try to hit the same drive every time based on a few plays thus far. Maybe over time I'll change my mind.

[Sean_A]

Charles Ambrose, as part of a series of essays on golf architecture published between 1925 and 1926, says that a mark of a good hole is that local knowledge is necessary to play it well. Ambrose thought that good holes required multiple plays and even then might not fully reveal their secrets. He clearly had TOC in mind, among some other courses.

Conversely, he thought the mark of a mediocre hole is where the best way to play it is obvious to the first time player. I take it that this would apply to obvious strategic options and as well as typical penal designs that dictated play. a

Like all pronouncements - this too is short sighted.  Great holes come in all shapes and sizes and can have many, few or one option.  The best courses are those which incorporate many types of holes (including ones where it as all in front you - ie Muirfield), using different types of terrain, getting a great balance (fun, challenge & beauty) and flow.  The bottom line, there is a lot more to greatness than a string of holes or lots of options.

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy:

I am with you on this; it is a rare hole indeed where one doesn't at some point settle on the best way to play it for one's game, and stick with that, perhaps changing it at times to fit the situation, but not really diverging all that much.

That's why when one finds a hole where this DOESN'T happen... well to me that's a great great golf hole.

And there aren't many of them.  In fact I am struggling for an example.  

Perhaps Pasatiempo #14?  Remember how you and I both ended up on the far left of the fairway?  That allowed for a great angle in and seemed to be rewarded... but in competitive play would it be worth the risk?  You likely didn't take much notice of the large swale in the fairway - understandably - but go down in there and it leaves a blind shot even for former hoopster Mike Sweeney.  But how bad is that?  Then you figure you can go right side... but that's a poor angle over the bunker... still it's a safer easier tee shot....

I never have come to a final decision on what to do off the tee on this golf hole.  And that to me makes it great.

TH

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
Pasatiempo #14 would go down in my book as a great hole because of the intrigue in the fairway. That swale is a great "hazard" in that its there and creates additional challenge if one hits into it, but it would rarely stop someone from attempting their normal approach into the green just because of being in it.

I wouldn't be sure on a second playing what to attempt to do there so it might be a good example as you state. I would never ATTEMPT to go left there though because I'm not accurate enough to hit it there on purpose. I was aiming right I think the first time too! Wasn't exactly my best ball-striking round in recent memory though.

[Tom_Doak]

I love "local knowledge" holes and I try to build a lot of them.

However, it's certainly NOT the trend in the business.  These types of holes holes are more likely to be pronounced "unfair" by a first-time visitor who approaches them the wrong way -- and in this day of golfers playing 30 rounds a year on 20 different courses, that visitor may never come back to learn from his mistake.  It was much different in olden days, when most golfers played their entire lives over a handful of courses, and within a year or two they would start to know the intricacies of the design.

"Local knowledge" in the olden days included yardages, too -- nobody had precise distances down, but players knew their home course well enough not to be fooled on club selection.  That's why Tour pros had to develop yardage charts before average golfers even thought of needing them.

[Bill Gayne]

The two courses that are at the opposite ends of this spectrum from my experience are the Old Course and Bethpage Black. I think a great description of the Old Course that I've heard is that it is "the ultimate nooks and cranny course." Local knowledge is all about knowing the nooks and crannies.

My experience, albeit limited and post Rees Jones, with Bethpage Black is that there really are no nooks and crannies. It's about hitting the defined shots which are often extremely demanding.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy:  my drive to the far left was plain luck also.    But still, 14 I think is a good example here.  I've played it dozens of times and I am still not sure what to try to do off the tee.

Tom Doak:  that's a hell of a quandary you have... if you want to please the raters and get quick acclaim, these "tough to figure out" holes are a recipe for disaster.  And it would be easy to say screw the raters - and let visitors either suffer, or get help - but it just ain't so easy, is it?  So good on you for trying to build them anyway.  Of course you aren't exactly suffering from lack of rater recognition, so you must be doing something right.  

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:  That's why you have both types of holes, I guess.

For example, when people mention Pacific Dunes to me, the holes they most often mention first are #11 and #13 -- spectacular holes for sure, but with relatively little added to them in terms of local knowledge.  (Frankly, anytime somebody mentions a par-3, I tune out, because there isn't much local knowledge to most short holes; everyone just tries to hit it close to the hole.)

I get much more interested when somebody mentions one of the other holes.  I'd say the holes with the most local knowledge there are #2, #3, #5 (wow, a par 3), #6, #8, #9, #12, #16, and #18.  And I certainly feel those holes have added a lot to the acclaim for the course, even if most people don't appreciate them the first time out.  The great thing about Bandon is that people keep going back!

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D:

I was thinking of PD too... hell yeah all of the ones you mention do require some degree of local knowledge for success.  I think 17 has a bit of it too... or let's just say looking at it, at least I thought the ball would kick in from the right more than it actually does...

In any case this has to be the largest part of PD's greatness for sure. I'd add that the scenic beauty helps too, but I don't want to pile on poor Pat Mucci.

 

[Matthew Hunt]

Good post but it can't be taken anywere near a rule of thumb  because it would make RCD #2 miles better than the Championship links and probably be the worlds best.

Nothing can beat a hole were the desired play is off a green-side bank.

[Mark_F]

Frankly, anytime somebody mentions a par-3, I tune out, because there isn't much local knowledge to most short holes; everyone just tries to hit it close to the hole.

Doesn't this mean they are just not very well designed?

Maybe the first time or two you play a short hole you head straight for the pin, but surely the great ones have some local knowledge thereafter about where to hit it in order to best access certain pins? Or which pins you don't go after?

Good case in point; Barnbougle 13. Better case in point; the short hole at NGLA?

I suppose Barnbougle 7 is a case in point for the opposite; You sure always try to get it close, it is just the matter in which you do so.

There at two courses Ran profiles here - Ballyneal and Sand Hills - where, for various reasons, the par threes sure appear to have degrees of local knowledge.

Extreme contours, degrees of blindness, hidden depth of hazards and slopes, a green that may fallaway at a certain point at the green - wouldn't all of these elements contribute?

There was a picture here of Merion's 13th a while back.  Isn't that another terrific example?  From memory of the picture, it has a bunker that hides part of the green surface, and a severe fall away on the right. There must be a place on that green you know never to go near, because you will end up in all sorts of strife.

[Bob Jenkins]

Great topic!

Tom D - Interested to see your comments on par 3s, excepting, at Pacific, but 5 and 17 definitely require knowledge of the extent of the fall from left to right on 5 and vice versa on 17.

I played Ballyneal this fall and the par 3 11th was certainly deceptive for the first timer. Looking from the tee, it looked like more trouble right but Matt Payne, the pro, told me to make sure I stayed away from the left side. Only once I got up there did I realize the problems of pitching from the left side.

I take it your comment re 6 and 9 at Pacific Dunes relate in particular to landing areas for your drive? 16 is the bunker at the back left and the mounding in the fairway?

I have only played two of your courses, ie those noted above and cannot recall a "blind" bunker or cluster of bunkers such as on the 12th at TOC (sorry for mentioning TOC). Maybe 2 at Pacific?) Have you ever designed a bunker that cannot be seen from the tee or approach area? Maybe there is a way of hiding a bunker with some subtle signs that something is there.

Regards

 

[Tim Gavrich]

Charles Ambrose, as part of a series of essays on golf architecture published between 1925 and 1926, says that a mark of a good hole is that local knowledge is necessary to play it well. Ambrose thought that good holes required multiple plays and even then might not fully reveal their secrets. He clearly had TOC in mind, among some other courses.

Conversely, he thought the mark of a mediocre hole is where the best way to play it is obvious to the first time player. I take it that this would apply to obvious strategic options and as well as typical penal designs that dictated play.

Joshua Crane and others responded that, no, good holes make the rewards and punishments of any shot transparent - because that was the best way to test golf skills.

The role (or not) of local knowledge is an interesting way of getting at some pretty fundamental issues.

Bob
 

I'm not so sure I agree with the notion that the necessity of local knowledge is an integral part of great holes.  In fact, the idea that great holes require multiple plays in order to reveal their greatness seems vaguely elitist.  I say that because it is fairly evident that the majority of the world's greatest holes are not accessible to the majority of golfers.

Furthermore, if the greatness requires multiple playings, the lucky few (non-members) who get to play the greatest courses usually play them only once in their lives.  If, then, the greatness comes out after multiple playings, those people will likely never experience it.  Sure, it's a great deal for the members of those courses, but it's not too great a prospect for the average folk who'll only get one chance.  In fact, if i was playing a course for what I thought would be the only time and I finished a hole  saying "Gosh, I really wish I'd have known to play it that way," I'd be a bit depressed.

Is that indomitable, mysterious quality interesting, even if one plays a hole once?  Sure; that's fine.  However, I disagree with the notion that great holes require multiple playings, and I totally reject Ambrose's idea that multiple playings are necessary for a merely "good" hole.

[Willie_Dow]

It is the basis for golf arcitecture, I believe - because - if you know the course, you know where you'r going !