[wsmorrison]

William Flynn proposed the following in his 1927 Green Section articles

Getting back to the average good course it does seem that from 6,200 to 6,600 yards should suffice for length. 

Dividing this up into holes there would be say four short holes ranging from the mashie to the full wood shot.

One real three-shotter not merely a hole somewhere over 500 yards. 

Two drive and full wood shot holes, one with a big carry on the drive as the premium with an easy entrance to the green, the other with accuracy drive but with the premium on a big carry for the second shot. 

One drive and high spoon shot, accuracy off tee and carry to the green.

One drive and full cleek shot to narrow entrance and slightly terraced green. 

One drive and high mid-iron carry to green.

Two drive and full run to green with narrow entrance.

One drive and high mashie iron carry to green.

One drive and mashie to narrow entrance.

One drive and mashie all carry to green.

One drive and mashie niblic to island green.

One drive and run up on narrow terraced green straight way.

One drive and runup, elbow or cape type with premium on length of drive.

The above list is not at all arbitrary but covers generally the
possibilities in an eighteen-hole layout.  With the exception of the short holes, assuming four to the layout, a golf course consists of 14 drives plus the par second and third shots and the object should be to provide holes of proper length to accommodate the more important clubs after the drive has been made.

It naturally follows if this play is carried out that holes of character and variety can be had.
The problems which should be developed on the various holes in the order of their importance are first-accuracy second-carry third-length, which includes carry and roll. The premium on accuracy should carry the greatest reward for this is the essence of any game. Carry while slightly less valuable than accuracy is important in that it promotes boldness. Length may be considered least important but this becomes quite a factor when a player is able to all three tests together.

In applying these problems or tests to the layout through the medium of bunkers the architect has a great opportunity to display versatility. On one hole he may have a big diagonal bunker off the tee where the player takes as much risk as he feels capable of carrying and is rewarded in his shot to the green commensurably with his first effort.  He may have a comparatively easy drive off another tee, and yet, if the ball strays slightly from the center of the fairway, his second shot to the green becomes increasingly hard.

By arranging the green bunkers in such a way as to invite play in from one side or the other he can also put a premium on placing the tee shot-on the proper side of the fairway. When a test of length off the tee is presented the best type is the cape or elbow where it takes a really big tee shot past a corner to permit reaching the green in par.

The problems may be diversified using one test off the tee on one hole, the same on the second shot of another hole; sometimes two of the same kind on the first and second shots of a hole; perhaps all tests, accuracy, carry and length on another but always juggling so as not to get sameness on succeeding holes.

While bunkers are thought by many to be put in as penalizers they are primarily installed to present a problem or a mode of play. If bunkers were used merely to punish bad shots there would have to be a complete revision of them on most courses. The worst shots in golf are generally bad tops and wide hooks or slices and the player generally has sufficient penalty in these weaknesses, particularly when greens are properly protected.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim S:

Perhaps I am reading too much into it -- but so have a lot of golf course architects, who go way out of their way in their designs to make each par-4 10 or 15 yards longer than the last, designing by the numbers instead of looking at the ground.  Maybe that makes sense in Florida, but not on real topo.

I am a huge fan of calling for the widest variety of golf shots, but this quote is more about range-finding.

Tommy W:

I looked through several of the links you provided, but the "every club in the bag" credo is never quoted as being Crump's own words.  The very thorough GAP write-up of the course (most likely written by Jim Finegan) includes it as one of the things he was trying to do, but it doesn't quote Crump directly on that, as it does on many other aspects of the design.  It's possible that was just Jim Finegan's interpretation -- a modern theorem laid on top of an older design.  And, once it's in print and online, it is copied ad infinitum whether it's correct or not.  That's why I asked Tom Paul if he really had it in Crump's words.

[JESII]

I don't think the quote is about range-finding. I think it's simply about variety. Nobody would ever think that a course on which I would hit every club in my bag could possibly equate to another golfer hitting every club in their bag...it just doesn't make sense.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom P and Tom D

Just to be clear, I'm no advocate of the modern-day theory of "shot testing", especially when its supposed lack is used to disparage quiet and understated golf courses. (I figure every shot that every golfer has ever faced/faces is a test). But I was surprised to find how early on in American golf the concept of testing every club in the bag emerged; and think that maybe what the early designers meant and wanted by that has been lost.  (See below) But I don't know that for sure, hence the question.

Wayne -   

It's interesting that you quote Flynn. The earliest mention of the concept I know of was in reference to Merion. This is from Robert Lesley in 1914:

"No greater contrast between two courses could be afforded than between these two owned by the Merion Club. The pictures tell the tale, and the varying lengths of holes, the varying character of fair green, the varying character of greens and the varying character of scenery—always in the eye of the golfer—give the player who, having played the east course in the morning, starts at Merion with his eighteen holes in the afternoon on the west course an opportunity to use every club in the bag and every shot in the imagination of the keenest golfer, and all in a day's play."

There's also a reference by "Hazard" in 1914 visiting Pine Valley and talking to Mr. Crump, and then including a breakdown by Simon Carr demonstrating PV's shot testing qualities:

"The total length of Pine Valley course is about 6,700 yards. It is not a sluggers course in any sense, except in the opinion of those who fix their standards by parlor golf played only with a mashie and putter. The following is an analysis of the shots up to the green, based on the supposition of good driving from each tee: 3 brassie approach shots, at holes 4, 16, 18; 4 cleek approach shots, at holes 1, 6, 9, 13; 4 midiron approach shots, at holes 2, 11, 12, 17; 4 mashie approach shots, at holes 7, 8, 14, 15; the one-shot holes are: No. 10 for a short iron, No. 3 for a long iron, No. 5, full shot with a wooden club. This arrangement give a full, well-balanced variety of approach shots as anyone could wish, and they are skilfully distributed over the round."

Peter

[wsmorrison]

Nice going, Peter.  I was about to type the passage from Lesley's write up of the two Merion courses...you beat me to it.  Even more so today, playing the East and the West courses in a day is a wonderful exercise in varying degrees of enjoyable difficulty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I don't know that it's a sign of good architecture, but, I do think it's a sign of an inherently good design.

[Peter Nomm]

For someone who has used this example to compliment a course, I doubt that I have really ever proved on paper that I did in fact hit every club.  I would suggest it is more the perception of a variety of approach shots that leads us to this rationalization. 

Weather has a significant factor in this.

And I may have hit every club because I was clanking my driver all day!

[Tom_Doak]

Peter P:

Thank you for the quote from Robert Lesley.  For now, at least, that is the earliest use of the phrase I've seen.

However, I still think that golfers and critics are PROJECTING ONTO ARCHITECTS the desire to make the golfer hit every club in the bag.  Many architects' books (but notably not MacKenzie's) spent some time discussing the make-up of the ideal golf course in terms of hole lengths, much as Wayne's quotation of Flynn.  But none of them that I've ever seen said anything specifically about hitting every club in the bag.

I do remember distinctly asking Pete Dye about that subject when I was working for him.  He had just got finished explaining how he wanted the par-4 holes at PGA West to be either really short or really long (470 yards), and not so much in between, because to him the in-between holes were really short for a Tour pro and really long for everyone else.  So I asked him if it mattered that he had three 470-yard par-4's and somebody might hit the same club on their approach shots to each of them?  And he replied that was silly -- that nobody hit their driver exactly the same distance three times in a row, and with the wind and other factors, you really have no control over the length of players' approach shots except on the par-3's, so that's the only place you should worry about it.

And over the course of one round, that is certainly true.  It was only years later, when I talked to members about the design of Stonewall, that it occurred to me that club members start thinking about par-4 holes in terms of their "normal" second-shot club, and mark down the course if two or three holes require six-iron approaches for them ... even if on any given day, they might have to hit a four-iron or an eight on those holes.

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

"Hazard" was A.W. Tillinghast.

George Crump and his friends (Ab & WP Smith, Father Carr, Howard Perrin, Joseph Clark and others)  were absolutely captivated by Herbert Fowler's philosophies, and his writings on what constituted an "ideal course".  They were so taken that they used to sit in the evenings in Crump's bungalow discussing his theories at length and apparently a few of Fowler's articles were placed there under glass.

I have one of the exact write-ups where Fowler describes, hole-by-hole, an "ideal" golf course.   

Beyond the shot requirements, and yes, the intent was to provide balance and variety (the every club in the bag idea), but also naturalness, and ease of routing.

I'll see if I can't get it online to post tomorrow.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D -

thanks, and for the details. Mr. Dye's thoughts always strike me as counter-intuitive (but I guess that's why he's Pete Dye and I'm not).   I think I understand the members at Stonewall: they look at what's 'on the card', and assume the only reason they're NOT hitting the same club in on similar Par 4s is because they're average golfers with no consistency.

Mike C -

thanks. I look forward to more, especially because it involves Herbert Fowler. Since I've been here at gca.com, I think I've grown most impressed by Flynn, Fowler and Maxwell, probably in that order. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

This thread kills one's anticipation to play Walnut Lane - thanks for ruining the fantasy!

[wsmorrison]

Here is the Pine Valley piece by Verdant Greene discussing Fowler's influence and the ideal course:

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks, Wayne...that's the one I was referring to. 

[Peter Pallotta]

My thanks too, Wayne. I just got a chance to read it now.  The combination -- i.e. a desire for very specific (almost mathematical) shot-testing challenges combined with a desire for as natural-looking an aesthetic as possible -- is very interesting to me, historically speaking especially. 

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

Thanks for reprinting that article.  But the quote about using every club in the bag is not there, either.

I found it interesting that one of Fowler's five points was that there should be no crossing holes.  I guess I'll have to deal with the ghost of Fowler on my latest routing plan for a project in the Caribbean ... because we're going to have a crossover. 

[JC Urbina]

I once did a routing and scorecard that represented the PERFECT  YARDAGE.  The yardage and routing required a total distance of 7013.  This was based on driving distances that were being posted on the tour back in 1988.  This yardage required that every club was used at least once in the round of golf.  I thought it was important since we had just moved up the landing areas to 280 yds from the back.  This was based on Pete's recomendations for what the kids were going to be hitting at The Karsten course at ASU.  The routing still exists but the total yardage would have to be adjusted.  Funny how the distances have changed, I am not sure what it needs to be today.  I may recalculate it again for 2008.  Twenty years later.

[RichMacafee]

I think this has always been a horribly overrated aspect of design.

Years ago it was possible, but it was a good-player bias -- if the 2-handicap hit every club in his bag, including long iron and fairway-wood approaches to greens, that also implied that the 10-handicap would have to pound long approaches nearly all day.

Surely the more shots you hit, the more likely you are to use every club in the bag

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

An interesting take on it, but not necessarily true.  I've known women golfers who never hit any iron but a 7 or 9 ... the rest of the time they're bumping it along with woods on holes that are way too long for them.

[wsmorrison]

The earliest instance I've found that mentions a design that uses every club in the bag is by "Hazard," in the March 1909 edition of American Golfer.  In lamenting the absence of a "real, classy course in Philadelphia, noted that there were a number of outstanding holes.  Hazard (Tillinghast) went on to describe a composite course using existing holes "...to represent the best of the various types, my selections being governed by the desire to make my imaginary course demand a thorough knowledge of all the clubs in the bag."

The holes included in this composite course included:

1.  8 at Philadelphia Country
2.  11 at Merion
3.  13 at Phila Country
4.  18 at Merion
5.  8 at Philadelphia Cricket
6.  5 at Spring Haven
7.  12 at Huntingdon Valley
8.  8 at Huntingdon Valley
9.  6 at Belfield
10.  10 at Phila Country
11.  6 at Phila Cricket
12.  17 at Merion
13.  7 at Huntingdon Valley
14.  10 at Phila Cricket
15.  17 at Huntingdon Valley
16.  16 at St. David's
17.  7 at St. David's
18.  18 at Phila Country

Whitemarsh Valley wasn't included because it was too new and untested.

[Mike_Cirba]

The earliest instance I've found that mentions a design that uses every club in the bag is by "Hazard," in the March 1909 edition of American Golfer.  In lamenting the absence of a "real, classy course in Philadelphia, noted that there were a number of outstanding holes.  Hazard (Tillinghast) went on to describe a composite course using existing holes "...to represent the best of the various types, my selections being governed by the desire to make my imaginary course demand a thorough knowledge of all the clubs in the bag."

The holes included in this composite course included:

1.  8 at Philadelphia Country
2.  11 at Merion
3.  13 at Phila Country
4.  18 at Merion
5.  8 at Philadelphia Cricket
6.  5 at Spring Haven
7.  12 at Huntingdon Valley
8.  8 at Huntingdon Valley
9.  6 at Belfield
10.  10 at Phila Country
11.  6 at Phila Cricket
12.  17 at Merion
13.  7 at Huntingdon Valley
14.  10 at Phila Cricket
15.  17 at Huntingdon Valley
16.  16 at St. David's
17.  7 at St. David's
18.  18 at Phila Country

Whitemarsh Valley wasn't included because it was too new and untested.

Wayne,

Interesting that none of the holes from Tillinghast's mythical 18 still exist today, with the possible exception of 6 or 10 from Philly Cricket, which has about a chance of still existing on today's St. Marten's course.

Perhaps Powell or Gib Carpenter can weigh in, because I don't know that original routing very well.

[wsmorrison]

I thought the same thing, Mike.  What about Spring Haven, could that still exist in a routing sense if not an intrahole design sense?

[Mike_Cirba]

I thought the same thing, Mike.  What about Spring Haven, could that still exist in a routing sense if not an intrahole design sense?

Yes, that's possible too, although it's a course I know only peripheral information about. 

Do you have any details on the "before" course prior to Flynn's involvement and what the 8th hole was?

[Tom Yost]

Sounds like something that could make an interesting game where you had to hit at least one shot with each club in your bag. 

Tom

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

It looks like Flynn didn't disturb the routing of the 5th hole at Spring Haven, though bunkers were added at the green (2) and one on the left side of the fairway.  I don't know if he altered the green.

[Doug Siebert]

I think this has always been a horribly overrated aspect of design.

Years ago it was possible, but it was a good-player bias -- if the 2-handicap hit every club in his bag, including long iron and fairway-wood approaches to greens, that also implied that the 10-handicap would have to pound long approaches nearly all day.

Surely the more shots you hit, the more likely you are to use every club in the bag

I agree with what Tom Doak said, short hitters are hitting "all they got" until they get close, and many of them have a favorite club like my dad with his 9 wood they are stretching to a good portion of their "less than all they got" range.  There's no course in the world that'll make him hit all his clubs, there are some he only has in his bag to take up space, because only uses them every half dozen rounds only to get pissed and put them back into golf club purgatory when they misbehave after a shot or two.

If you want to see someone hit all the clubs in their bag, give them a diet of repetitive medium long par 4s that are all the same distance, and make sure they are a somewhat inconsistent striker of the ball.  Some days I could play a course that's all 450 yard par 4s and hit everything in my bag (well except my putter and LW) for my approach depending on how well I hit my drive and how far offline it went   Actually, if it were a links course, its possible I might find an occasion to use my putter at some point as well!

I don't think the goal should be to make golfers play every club in their bag, it is to avoid making them feel like "this is the same shot I just had".  If I use my 8 iron five times in one day but one is a generic shot on a flat hole, the next is steeply uphill, the next plays into the teeth of the wind, the next is to a pin cut tight over some water and the last is with the ball well above my feet, I feel that's much greater variety than if I play five holes that were a generic shot on a flat hole that happened to be played with a 6,7,8,9,PW.  It shouldn't be about the number on the club, or the yardage of the shot.

For example, I don't like that my home course has its 4 par 3s all measure about 200 yards (on the card I think its something like 201, 204, 199, 201, something like that)  But the first one has the prevailing wind right to left, the second is dead into it, the third is downhill over water and with the wind, the last is somewhat uphill and with a right to left wind.  I might hit a 5 iron on both the right to left wind holes, but on the other two I'm hitting a 7 iron downhill and with the wind and a 3 iron into the wind, so its really three different shots in my mind.  Still less variety than I'd like to see from par 3s, but not as bad as it appears if you look at the scorecard (or play it on a windless day)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()