What is it, architecturally, about a hard hole

[Patrick_Mucci]

that makes you like it ?

Please cite the hole you find hard and the architectural features that appeal to you.

# 3 at NGLA, the "ALPS" hole, would be one of my candidates.

Standing on the tee the golfer is faced with a diagonal bunker that's short left and long right.

The further right the golfer drives the ball, the better the results for several reasons.

A.  enjoy a turbo boost if you draw the ball
B.  better angle/view of a corner of the green
C.  fairly flat to slightly uphill lie
D.  length

Drives hit center or left are totally blind due to an enormous hill that obstructs any view of the green and surrounds and must rely on your caddy or a tall pole behind the hole for directional guidance.

In addition, any drive hit 250, center or left will either be in a bunker or tall, difficult fescue.  Drives hit 250+ down the right side, remain in a narrowed portion of the fairway, thus, in addition to being long enough to carry the longer portion of the diagonal fairway bunker, you must be accurate enough to remain in a fairway that narrows.

A drive of 250 will leave the golfer between 160 and 176 from the back tees, with an uphill lie, a huge hill facing them, and, chances are, a nice breeze in their face.

The huge hill is covered in fescue.

The fairway doesn't appear again until a few yards in front of the green.

A drive of about 250 is ideal in that the golfer benefits from the widest part of the fairway and an uphill lie which will assist with getting the approach shot airborne quickly so that it can rise above the fronting hill.

Poorly hit drives in the diagonal bunker can't reach the green and short drives just over the bunker have downhill lies that make getting over the huge fronting hill almost impossible.

The approach shot is fraught with doubt since the complete visual is lacking.

One has to trust the distance and direction they've calibrated.

The green is fronted with another cross bunker and flanked with bunkers, with the right side bunker being exceptionally deep.

The green is huge, but plays small.
It's one of those greens within greens some of us love.
There are bowls, shelfs, plateaus and slopes, plenty of slopes.
Hitting the green is a terrific accomplishment, but, no guarantee of a par or a bogie.

The green is diabolical.

One has to hope that they've hit their approach to the same general area that the hole has been cut.  And even then, when the greens are at pace, most golfers are putting defensively.

In addition to the above, the air is usually heavy, and/or there's a good wind up.

All of which combine to make the hole quite difficult in total, but, each shot is exciting and challenging, from the moment you step on the tee until you walk off the green and ring Joe McBride's bell, signalling the groups behind that the green is clear for play.

The hole represents unique challenges on the drive, approach, recovery and putts.  Each shot is a unique game within itself, almost unrelated to the previous and upcoming shots.  And, there's a tremendous diversity in the hole in that there seems to be an infinite number of ways to play your drive, but, a limited number of ways to play your approacy, followed by a great number of ways to play your recovery and putts.

If someone would post a google earth aerial, I'll incorporate it in the opening post.

Thanks

[Mark_Fine]

I don't think there is reason to cite any particular hole.  In general, on ANY good golf hole, it is almost always some form of hazard that creates the interest, challenge, and/or temptation that makes the hole exciting and rewarding to play.   In fact, I can't name any exceptions.

[Ronald Montesano]

I'll cite a hole at the Country Club of Buffalo-Williamsville, that I find to be a damned hard hole.  Number 3 is a dogleg right par four.  The tee deck was aimed by Ross at the right rough/ob, so you are forced to aim diagonally across the tee box to site the fairway.  Anything pushed might find a bunker some 220 yards off the tee, thick rough right, or OB farther right.  Go left and another fairway bunker awaits, along with trees separating the 3rd from the 8th fairways.  The hole plays slightly uphill, I'd say about ten feet elevation change from tee to green.  The tee shot plays over an earth wave that extends across the entire fairway about 200 yards off the tee...you go up, then down, then up...almost a biarritz fairway!

Assuming that you hit a good tee ball, you land in the flat, some 150-175 yards from the green.  The longest hitters on the high school teams I coach can sometimes get it to 130.  The approach is played to an average width green with deep bunkers back and right, an enormous wave on the front left (that kicks approach shots right) and another bunker back left, behind the wave.  You can bounce the ball in, especially helpful as you might approach with 5-iron or more.  The green rises from front to back.  You can escape with an up-and-down from front and either side.  Get it up and down from the back and you are a magician.

What does it for me is the natural pull of the hole to the left, even as the fairway doglegs away to the right, off the tee.  If you combat this with an aim to the right, overcompensation creeps in and you flare one into trouble over yonder.  It plays like a dogleg from the tee, then a straight hole on the approach.   I believe that the pull of the quarry (northern holes) gives a little extra speed from front to back, so you find yourself putting downhill quite often.  The putting surface is quite contoured, with no straight fall line.  All putts move one way or another, often with great curvature.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I guess your subject here is one where we could scrutinize particular architectural features and such of various holes in the context of your questions but something tells me in almost every case we will find that in the overall these kinds of holes are going to basically be perceived as sort of half-pars and their nominal par is the lower par number and not the higher one.

This is precisely why I think a hole like NGLA's #7 deserves to be listed as a par 4 on at least an alternate scorecard.

With a hole like NGLA's #3 obviously it's not a candidate for a par 5 because it isn't long enough but I think you can catch my drift anyway.

In my career in tournament golf I generally played VERY CONSERVATIVELY some of those really hard par 4s I ran into (or really hard par 3) for a conservative bogie (hoping to scramble for par) simply to avoid being too aggressive strategically and ending up with a much bigger number.

[George Pazin]

deleted - I'll repost it after coming up with a good example.

[JESII]

Pat,

I'll work on some examples later, but to your initial question...don't you think it's just the thrill of making a good score on a hole (or course) that is deemed "hard"?

I think we're all competing to some degree. Take two middle of the road (in architectural quality) holes; one is a 350 par four with relaively little trouble or interest, and the other is a 450 par four with relatively little trouble or interest...99 out of 100 people would prefer to par the onger hole.

In that context, more difficult generally equals better to most people...the context being equal quality.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I think your answer is predicated on whether or not you made a good score and thus your feelings would vary from day to day, versus having a constant romance with the architectural features.

I was going to cite # 18 and # 15 as well, with those narrow driving areas and demands at or around the green.

I love those holes irrespective of my score on a particular day.

There's certainly a great deal of satisfaction with making a good score on a hard hole, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you enjoy repeat play on that hole.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
This what you were looking for?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

Thanks.
Unfortunately, the green, at the bottom and surrounds has been cut off.

If you could post the entire hole it would be great.

But, the photo above captures the basic essence of the hole in terms of features and strategies, absent the dramatic elevation changes and contouring.

As previously described the elevated tee gives the golfer a panoramic view of the fairway, bunkering and the huge fescue laden hill that looms large in front of the golfer.

The aerial illustrates the alternate route to the green that avoids traversing the huge fescue laden hill.  This route can be taken by higher handicaps or golfer's whose tee shots compromises their ability to traverse the huge fescue laden hill.

The fairway sits well below the green and the top of the huge hill.
The green sits at about the same elevation as the top of the hill, with a mini-valley and bunkering between the top of the hill and the green.

The further back the drive lands in reference to the hill the longer the approach, but, that's not the dilema.  The dilema is that longer shots require less lofted clubs.  Decreased loft may result in a ball not being able to climb up above the huge hill, especially if the lie is flat or slightly downhill.

Despite all of the perils associated with this hole, including blindness and the wind, it remains a joy to play, EVERYDAY.

Balls hit short of the green usually end up in the fronting greenside bunker.

The terrain tends to pitch from right to left at the green, thus, when the hole is cut center or left, balls slightly pulled or drawn will end up left and down from the green.

The green rises precipitously above the right side green bunker to a plateau.

The green is composed of plateaus, narrow shelfs, slopes and bowls, it's large and a true greens within a green.
 

[Phil Benedict]

Patrick,

Waterbury's second hole is a 453-yard dogleg left par 4 where shot values abound.  It's a typical Ross style hole with the drive into a valley and approach to an elevated green.

The drive is very challenging because the outside of the dogleg is death; thus if you miss only slightly to the right you end up in jail.  My aiming point is a fairway bunker that's 300-yards from the tee to the right of the fairway.  Even 10-yards to the right of the bunker can be big trouble with a driver, so I often hit a 3-wood to guard against reaching the trouble on the right.  If I execute the shot properly I will be 180-200 yards from the green, typically a 4 or 5-iron, whereas a slightly mishit 3-wood will leave me too far back to go for the green. (In the spring and fall, when the prevailing wind is left-to-right I have to hit driver because the hole plays too long to hit a 3-wood.) 

The left side of the fairway is preferable because the right-to-left slope is less severe in that area and the angle to the green is better.  However, you have to draw the ball to get to the left because there are trees preventing a straight line approach.  This is one example of trees enforcing shot-making values, becasue you have to shape your shot to get around them.

The green sits on a knoll that rises about 25-feet above the fairway.  I have never landed short and rolled onto the green on my second shot; you have to fly it to the green.  Shots that land short roll back down to the bottom of the hill, leaving an awkward uphill pitch.  However, the green slopes severely from back-to-front so being long is no day at the beach either, particularly when the greens are fast.  Mishit shots never end up on the green, particularly with a mid or long-iron.  Pin high 20-footers from either side of the hole will break 1-3 feet, so two-putting is a challenge.

Four is a great score on this hole and it can really set up your round.

[Charlie Goerges]

Here is another view, no back tee unfortunately.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Geez - does this picture not do the hole justice.  The elevation, blind lengthy approach, tall framing fescues to a huge highly contoured green all adds to make this hole one tough hombre.  JC

[Patrick_Mucci]

Charlie,

Thanks for the photo, it provides an improved view of what the golfer faces.

From the tee the golfer can only see the fairway and hill, nothing beyond it.

Many golfers try to drive their ball just short of that leftside center bunker leaving them with a nice uphill lie, about 160 to the center of the green.

This is another hole where a wind at your back isn't such a huge advantage due to the penal nature of the fescue on the fronting hill.  Balls hit into it have little chance of reaching the green.  I've seen many golfers labor with two, three or four shots from the fescue before they get to the green, so making sure you're short of the smaller center bunker is paramount.

There's a neat berm/backstop behind the green, but, if you get into it, recovery is almost impossible since you're hitting from a steep downhill lie out of good rough to a fast green that runs severely away from you.

The personality and play of the hole varies tremendously with hole location and the wind.

It's a wonderfully challenging yet sporty hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Look at all of the random features.

Random features that somehow come into play when the golfers intentions and execution goes awry.

It is these features, many of which look out of play, that rise up to confront golfers who hit less than planned or perfect shots.

It is the individual and collective nature of these features that make the hole a joy to play.

Multiple elevation changes, bunkering galore, wonderful contouring in the fairways and green.  Add in blindness, the wind and the rub of the green and they combine to make this one of the great holes in golf. 

A hole that allows every level of golfer to play THEIR route from tee to green.
A hole that allows different features to interface with different paths of play.

[Charlie Goerges]

I've never played it, but I find this hole fascinating. Everything I've read about it, and all the photos I've looked up only increase my interest. Thanks Patrick for the discussion of it. I would like to hear some desciptions of other holes at this course, perhaps with photos and/or aerials to help describe the design.

Charlie

[Lyne Morrison]

What is it, architecturally, about a hard hole that makes you like it ?


I think it gets back to the essence of the game. I know if I can successfully achieve the required balance of accuracy, carry and length on a good hole - it is very satisfying - and then I want to do it again..

Good point Mark, enjoyed your book- thanks.

Cheers

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - this is a really neat question.

I think most of us who love golf have a kind of half-conscious library stored away in the back of our minds. It's made up of all that we've read or seen of the great players, e.g. the absolute shot-making mastery of Ben Hogan (or George Knudson); the nerve and flair of Arnold Palmer; the clear and dispassionate thinking of Jack Nicklaus; the determination of Gary Player etc.

I think hard golf holes bring all of that up for us, and into play. For me, there's a Par 3 I really enjoy. It's 175 yards (210 from the very back), slightly uphill and often into the wind, well-bunkered, with a green that (appears) much wider than it is deep, but that's often the firmest on the course because it's exposed to the wind, and with a little opening on the right side

Now, I'm no great shakes as a player, but this hole is always a pleasure because it challenges in so many ways -- it's visually deceiving, it asks you to hit a tough shot (for me, a 4 iron that I want to get high in the air to hold the green), it offers a thinking man's choice (a lower trajectory shot aimed for the right-side opening, but with the green falling slightly away on that side), and it challenges you to think realistically and/or to take a chance (i.e. it can be a relatively easy par, since there is a lot of room at the back off the green and it's not a hard chip from there, so taking more club and playing for a good par is a definite option; but coming up short or left/right trying to stick it close means a bogie is almost certain).

I stand there and I get to feel a little like my heroes.  It's a nice feeling. The architecture brings that feeling to life.

A side-bar: I wrote to Lorne Rubenstein to compliment him on an article he'd written about George Knudson, whom Lorne knew well and who some say was one of the few players Hogan wanted next to him on the driving range; Knudson certainly patterned himself after Hogan, and by most accounts was almost his match both as a shot-maker and as a mediocre putter. I happened to mention that there was something about Knudson that made me think of him as an artist (I don't remember now what Lorne wrote that made me think that). And Lorne wrote back saying that Knudson was in fact an artist, literally -- he had even gone to art school.

Which is to say, I think there is something artistic about what a hard (and interesting) golf hole manifests, and brings out in us

Peter       

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

The last part of your initial post gets to the heart of the question, and can be summed up as: a variety of options, with big spreads in terms of "risk/reward" on shots from every possible position.  This is essentially the "Crosby (Bob) Conjecture" discussed on here in years past.  I think it would be very interesting to have discussions of individual holes such as #3 NGLA with photographic references to the specific characteristics such as you detailed in your first post.  In fact, I see this is being more interesting and instructive than overall course profiles, which tend to be travelogues rather than discussions of architrecture.

Rich

PS--I don't think that "hard"ness of the hole is relevant, particularly in relation to "par.".  I can think of numbers of greatly interesting holes which are "easy" to the extent of the score you might expect, but offer the same range of challenges as #3 NGLA.  #1 and #2 at NGLA come immediately to mind.

j-p p

[JESII]

PS--I don't think that "hard"ness of the hole is relevant, particularly in relation to "par.".  I can think of numbers of greatly interesting holes which are "easy" to the extent of the score you might expect, but offer the same range of challenges as #3 NGLA.  #1 and #2 at NGLA come immediately to mind.

j-p p

That's really it right there...I tried to articulate my thoughts earlier but made a bogey.

In the context Rich uses it seems like a rhetorical question..."What is it, architecturally, about an interesting, great hole[/i] that makes you like it?


Pat,

After you insist (as I am sure you already have above in bold green ink) that your terminology was selected with precision please identify an easy great hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In the context Rich uses it seems like a rhetorical question..."What is it, architecturally, about an interesting, great hole[/i] that makes you like it?

That wasn't my question.
My question dealt with a difficult (hard) hole.

Pat,

After you insist (as I am sure you already have above in bold green ink) that your terminology was selected with precision please identify an easy great hole.

My terminology was selected with precision.

As to the answer to your question, I'd cite # 2 at NGLA, although some might cite # 17, # 16, # 14, # 9, # 7, # 6, # 5 and possibly # 1.

[JESII]

It appears you agree with Rich Goodale's post #17 as well then...

Maybe I should ask, why did you select "hard (difficult)" as the leading word in this thread title? It seems your focus is more on "great" holes and you identified a difficult one (#3 NGLA) as your example...do #'s 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 16 or 17 offer any less interest to as wide a range of players?

Please re-read my early reply on this thread...I agree that difficult holes receive more praise than easy holes with comparable architectural quality/interest...but it's not because of the architecture...it's because we feel better conquering (par or birdie) a hard hole...and for many, that in itself makes the hole better.

[JESII]

I don't think there is reason to cite any particular hole.  In general, on ANY good golf hole, it is almost always some form of hazard that creates the interest, challenge, and/or temptation that makes the hole exciting and rewarding to play.   In fact, I can't name any exceptions.

Mark,

Are there any holes with absolutely no hazard of any form, by your definition of the term?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Not if you take my definition to the extreme but that is not the intent.  We might never agree on what is a hazard and what is not and that is fine.  But for lack of a better term, I've broken my definition up into formal hazards (as defined in the rules of golf) and informal hazards.  Informal hazards are all those things we talked about in the past. 

What do you define as a hazard?  Is there anything outside the USGA's definition that would constitute as one?  I played yesterday and there was some snow on the course.  Is that a hazard?  My playing partner sure thought is was    We played it as it lies.

I stand by my position that ANY good hole has some form of a hazard or hazardous situation (call it what you want).   If it doesn't, it is probably a pretty dull hole.
Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

This is where we've fallen off the tracks in the past...I have no problem with your definition of informal hazards. It makes perfect sense. My issue is with your last sentence there..."I stand by my position that ANY good hole has some form of a hazard or hazardous situation (call it what you want).   If it doesn't, it is probably a pretty dull hole."[/i]

All I would ask is what is not a hazardous situation?

In the past we agreed that a three foot putt into the grain was a hazardous situation...the short grass next to a green is a hazardous situation, so is the long grass...

[JESII]

Or maybe better...every hole has some form of hazardous situation...every single one, good and bad.