Good architecture?

[Lou_Duran]

Hole description:

Par 4, 435 yards moderate dog-leg R, few hundred feet above sea level, one club elevated tee to fairway, one club uphill second shot.

Junk left and right off the tee; heavily vegetated canyon running diagonally all the way across the fairway, 210-215 yards from the tee on the right side, 235-250 on the left which is also blocked by trees.

Large, long green angled slightly with the dog-leg (say 7:00 to 1:00 from front to back) with a running creek and heavy vegetation to the right.

How I played it:

3 metal down the middle into canyon.  Drop.  177+ yards to pin, 6 iron to front third of green.  Misjudged uphill, grain, drainage for 3 putts from 80' (15' short, 3' right made).

Should have played 3-4 iron off the tee, 3 to 4 iron to the green.  Target golf at its finest, but is it a good hole?

[Carl Rogers]

No!

As it is bad to punish the weaker player with forced carries they can not manage, it is equally bad to FORCE lay-ups for the bigger hitter.

Bubba should always have the option  of pulling the driver out of the bag even though he may be required to hit an accurate straight shot, fade or draw.

[Greg Clark]

While not a canyon, but a creek cutting across the fairway(and no significant elevation change), your description reminds me a bit of the 2nd at The Trails of Frisco.  I usually hit a 19% utility followed by a 3 or 4 iron.  A 3 metal puts it in the creek on the drive.  Anything flared to the right on the second shot is usually lost.

I think that hole is poor, and as you describe your hole, it also sounds that way.  In general I don't like holes that force you to lay up and then require you to hit a 200 yard shot to the green.  And to Jeff Brauer, I do like a few of the other holes on that course.  

[Philippe Binette]

I don't know if every hole where you hit 4-iron / 4-iron are bad. After all it's the player decision or lack of ability to play it that way... Since golf courses should encourage you to improve your game (until you're able to fly the creek), I don't know...
I play a hole like that this summer, 247 to fly... on a 410 yard hole. Most of the time I hit 4-iron / 6-iron (no irrigation). I tried once to hit driver and the ball flew 246 yards... I have to improve.

The thing is, before as 15 years ago, architect were putting creek or canyons at 280 - 300 yards from the tee thinkin, nobody would get there but easy to fly in two shots. Now some of those holes need a 3 iron from the best players...

When Tiger won at Liverpool hitting 4-iron to avoid bunkers followed by 6-iron, everybody thought it was genius...

[Jason McNamara]

How different is that from the 8th at Pebble?

(NB:  I haven't played PB)

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason:  that's funny - I have played PB a few times, and as I read Lou's description, I thought it was an attempt to disguise that hole.  Obviously there are no thick trees at 8 PB, but the rest holds up.

And 8 PB remains a great golf hole simply because of the scenery if nothing else.  Interesting though, Bubba could hit driver too... he'd haev to go way left out into the junk in the triangle between 8, 6, 14... but it could be done.

Normal play is about 220 off the tee then 175 or so to the green.

[Kirk Gill]

Every once in a while it would seem appropriate to ask a big hitter to know how far he hits, and to prove through club selection that he can avoid hitting too far. A hole like that might make hitting a more exacting location a priority, since a shorter club is being used, but I don't necessarily agree with the notion that on all but one-shotters a driver should be usable. Not all the time.

[Joe Perches]

I have played PB a few times, and as I read Lou's description, I thought it was an attempt to disguise that hole.

My guess is 1 or 6 at the Crossings at Carlsbad...

[Tom Huckaby]

Joe:

Hmmmm... are you sure you have the right holes?  I don't see 1 or 6 being even close to Lou's description... from memory, and from checking the website too!

http://www.thecrossingsatcarlsbad.com/layout10.asp?id=182&page=3861

TH

[Lou_Duran]

The hole I tried to describe is #13 at the Princeville- Prince Course.  Perhaps Tiger or Daly can carry the canyon, but the slithering of short grass and uneven ground on the other side would not be provide sufficient reward for the risk.  For the record, I am a shortish hitter with my driver carrying only 235 yards in neutral conditions.

I've only played Pebble Beach once and #8 does not have a similar feel or look.  For one thing, the drive is somewhat blind and uphill, and the inlet is more angled toward the green (more room on the left, I think).  The green is also much smaller, downhill somewhat (right?), and angled a bit more (perhaps 7:30 to 1:30?).  Additionally, the scenery (not a small thing in how we perceive GCA), is incomparable.

This Prince Course has several holes with diagonal canyons, crevices, and forced carries.  These are more of a problem/concern for the long hitters from the tee.  #13 is the only hole that I had to lay-up on from the back tees, though the smart play on the shorter, preceding hole would have been with a lesser club than the driver.  I don't mind at all laying-up as long as my next shot is not terribly long or IF I choose that route for tactical reasons.  I can live with a forced lay-up followed by an equally long second shot (#13) as long as it happens rarely.    

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:

I have never been a fan of forced carries and especially of carries as severe and far as some at The Prince Course.

However, your general question is interesting because it seems so dependent on yardage.  You imply (as most posters would) that the hole is bad because the ravine is at a certain distance ... forcing you to lay up.  I think many would find this to be an excellent hole if the canyon were shorter off the tee, so they might make it to the other side; or if it were longer off the tee, so their best drive wasn't a "layup".  

The truth is, it's always a layup for somebody.  In my first example a 200-yard-hitting senior might have to lay up while you go for it, which is even more unfair to him than the present hole is to you.  In my second example it might be a layup for Tiger but not for you -- but few seem to mind if Tiger has to lay up.

So whether it's good architecture or not is all dependent on the golf game of the observer.  Either that, or it's always bad architecture to have a big ravine going through the landing area like that.

[John Moore II]

I am not certain if the hole is unfair simply because it has a ravine runing through the fairway, same as Tom said. In reality, a hole that is 435 yds and 2+ clubs uphill might be better off for the average player to play as a par '5' even though the card says 4. With that much uphill, it plays more like 465ish, if I read the discription right. If you play it like that, it becomes not so hard. I do not however, think that holes are unfair simply because they are odd or hard.
--Question to you Lou--Would you still think it was unfair if your 3 wood stopped short of the ravine and you hit the next shot on the green and putted for birdie?

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Doak,

I know that you operate at a much different level of artistic and design philosophy than I do, but how one can divorce distance from a game which is all about spatial relationships is well beyond my capabilities.

My personal evaluation of the hole has much less to do with the distance of the canyon from the tee as it does to that from the tee side of the canyon to the green.  If a well struck tee shot with less than a 3 metal resulted in a second shot in the 125-150Y range, I think it would be a better hole.  As it is, because it is the only one that required a lay-up followed by a near equally long 2nd, I don't have a large problem with the hole.

On a broader issue, we do disagree in that I don't believe that a great course can be all things to all people.  Though MacKenzie suggested the "most for the most" principle, I think that this is largely an unrealizable ideal.  BTW, I also like the practicality of multiple tees (though not the aesthetics), and a minimum of forced carries (those that do not provide reasonable alternative routes).

When I was a rater, I never evaluated a course based on my game or how I happened to be playing that day.  My "objective" standard was that of the excellent amateur player, say a 0 to 5, which includes long knockers, excellent game managers, and skilled chipers and putters.  Diagonal and central hazards do not bother me, in fact, I very much like them (like #13 at Rawls) if they have strategic implications.  Whether a course had adequate ladies' tees was never a serious consideration (as one of my former colleagues suggested at a raters' outing).

Johnny M,

I don't often think in terms of "fair" or "unfair", and I certainly didn't suggest that Prince #13 was unfair.  As to your question, I may have felt better about my play had your scenario borne out, but not my evaluation of the hole.  My objection is to the forced lay-up followed by a long second shot.  BTW, the hole plays one club short downhill off the tee, and one club longer from the fairway to the green.  For golfers who slice or have a hard time getting the ball in the air, this hole is a killer.

Sean A,

Many golfers don't like blind shots because seeing/visualing the target plays no small part in execution.  Golf is already difficult enough for most people making it unncessarily to purposely deprive the player from using all his sensory capabilities.  Additional factors against blindness are speed of play and liability (for hurting someone).  I suspect that if the classic designers had today's equipment, the connector holes and blind shots would be far fewer in number.  BTW, I like a couple of blind shots on a course, particularly those that result from misfires or overly conservative play.        
 
 

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:

I didn't mean to pick on you; you just raised an objection which most people seem to make.

If I were faced with a property like that (with several ravines of substantial width) I would try my best to bring them into play on the tee shots, where someone could choose a tee for their own level of game.  When you put the hazard on the second shot, you force the women to lay up to the very edge of the hazard, and then try to make the carry off a random lie, maybe in the rough, when they fear they won't make it -- and the chances of success are very low.

Is it true that GOLF DIGEST panelists don't consider playability for the average woman, at all?  That might explain why their ranking of The Prince Course is so much higher than my own.

[Tom Huckaby]

Is it true that GOLF DIGEST panelists don't consider playability for the average woman, at all?  That might explain why their ranking of The Prince Course is so much higher than my own.

I'd guess that this factors into our playability criterion, or at least should.  I know I tend to always consider this - not so much about how women would play a hole or a course, but more how my Dad would, who god love him at his age hits the ball about the same as the average decent young woman golfer.

And my guess is others think the same.

Not sure what the guidance we have on this is, I'm sure it's in our materials somewhere!  Perhaps another panelist can chime in.

TH

[John Moore II]

Tom-Yes its true that Golf Digest, in their normal rankings do not take women into consideration. Most of the rating numbers are based on difficulty and playability and such for the scratch player. They describe their messed up system in detail somewhere on their website. But at no time do any of the numbers reflect enjoyability or anything else from an average golfers perspective or a lady's. Though I supposed you don't mind where they rank Pacific Dunes

[Tom Huckaby]

Johnny M:  I am a Golf Digest rating panelist and there are several other regular participants in here who are as well.  Our system may be messed up as you see it, but see my post above - it's just not true that women are not considered, or at least I don't think so.  And it's really not true that "at no time do any of the numbers reflect enjoyability or anything else from an average golfers perspective or a lady's."

We have a criterion called "resistance to scoring" that is based on how a scratch would play a course, but that's the only criterion that is limited like this (and it makes sense for it to be so limited, I think).

But here's the definition we use under the "Playability" criterion:

How well does the course challenge low handicap golfers while still providing options for high handicappers through the use of shorter lengths, alternative routes, varied placement of hazards, and accessible portions of greens?

Care to retract your post?  
TH

[John Moore II]

Tom--My post was not directed at you or anyone else who does the ratings. I am saying, that with many of the ratings, especially the "hardest in the nation" and especially the Places to Play star ratings, that the clubs that contribute the most money into advertising with Golf Digest get the best ratings. I think my club is 3 star, and one of out other clubs is 2 1/2. And both of them are far better than some of the courses in the Pinehurst area that are rated 4 1/2 and 2 stars. And to say that Mid Pines is in the Top 25 of the state, I just don't get. There are several courses in the state that many would say are far better, but are not even on the rankings. That is most of my reason for saying the ratings are funky.

[Tom Huckaby]

Places to Play is a wholly-different animal - all "ratings" are contributed by whoever wants to send such in, and as such are a total crapshoot and truly ought to be taken with an OCEAN of salt.  I have little doubt things do work out as you say.  I don't recall the magazine doing a "hardest in the nation".

My references were to Top 100 Courses in the US, and Best New Courses in the US.  Those are done as I say.   And you are very wrong about those, and I have to believe those are the ratings to which Tom Doak refers.

TH

[Andy Troeger]

Johnny,
As Huck mentions, GD raters do not have anything to do with the Places to Play guide nor do I recall us having anything to do with the hardest courses in the USA although the magazine did do a listing of those. You can go to the website and contribute to the places to play ratings as can anybody else who reads this.

Furthermore, how do you profess to know that women are not taken into consideration? I'm sure the women on the panel would be interested in hearing your response.

If you want to say the ratings are "funky" or poor or whatever go right ahead, but with all due respect at least get your facts straight.

[John Moore II]

Tom/Andy-I had been under the impression that the course ratings only computed the values for scoring type ratings from the view of a scratch golfer. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. However, from what I had read on the GD website where they describe how the ratings work, that is the thought that I had. If I am wrong, and since you are each raters, I will say that I am, then I am just wrong. All apologies to anyone who feels slighted.

[Andy Troeger]

Johnny,
No worries on my part. The GD panel certainly does favor the low handicap golfer however part of the point they try to make to us is not to worry much about how the professional golfers play the course versus amateur golfers whether they be scratch, single digit handicaps, or otherwise.

The large majority of the panel are low handicaps and those that may not be now were when they joined the panel so you're not entirely wrong in your thoughts by any stretch, just a bit overzealous


If there's anyone out there familiar with both holes, does this hole at the Prince compare at all with #11 at Pasatiempo? It seems like the ravine is a little closer on the hole at the Prince as one can hit a driver at Pasa and as long as they are accurate still stay in the fairway (unless you're pretty darn long).

[Tom Huckaby]

No great hassles here either, Johnny.  There is just a long history in this forum of ripping Golf Digest ratings, how they are done, those who compile them... so bear with us if we're a little sensitive at times.

 
 

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Doak,

I didn't think you were picking on me.  Your candor is always appreciated.  Even when you are wrong!

Not to pile on the Prince (top 100 GD, GW Modern), or this particular hole, but would you expound on how #13 might be a better hole?  Based on what you said relative to the use of a canyon (bringing into play from the tee), would you bring the green in closer on the other side?  

For the record, I was not a Golf Digest rater and I am not suggesting that my approach was dictated precisely by the magazine whose panel I was very fortunate to have been a member.

Evaluating a course from a variety of playing ability perspectives is important.  I suspect that one of the magazines does this best by having a wide mix of players among its panelists.

However, an objective analysis of the the rankings suggests that the top courses tend to be very demanding.  I've played 50%+ of the courses on the lists, and can think of only a handful where the average golfer, male or female, might have a chance of shooting his handicap.

Playability and piling up a score do not seem to me to be compatible.  Should the rankings be further segmented by ability or gender?  I don't think the raters are that good.  I know I tried very hard and I don't think I was.

Tom Huckaby,

No need to be defensive.  Your magazine does a great job and puts out the data for all to see.  All rankings are mere opinions, and the major magazines try very hard to make them educated and thoughtful.  At the end of the day, if you delve in the market of opinions and ideas, you will always displease a certain percentage.  Fortunately, most of us recognize the imprecision while still deriving value and enjoyment from the lists.

Andy Troeger,

#11 at Pasatiempo is an entirely different hole.  The barranca or ravine runs primarily down the left side of the fairway, the green is closer on the other side, the hole is shorter, and the drive is not a forced layup except for the long hitters.  Prince's #13 requires more precision off the tee to make a long second shot less long.  Pasa's #11 is a tight drive which may induce the less accurate driver to lay-up, but still have a medium to short second shot.  The severe 11th green makes second shot placement critical.  The second shot on Prince #13 is more about getting the ball somewhere on or close to the green.                

[Edwin Roald]

I don't think a hole like that - with a forced layup or whatever you call it - is all that bad if it is an essential part of an overall attractive routing that makes use of a good variety of natural features.

The holes around it would need to be of high merit for me to see a reason for laying out the hole in such a way.