[Mac Plumart]

While reading "The Spirit of St. Andrews", Mackenzie states that the 11th at St. Andrews is the ideal golf hole.  He wrote these words in 1935 (I think).

Does anyone know if there has been any major changes of the hole from then to now?

Also, can someone really putt the entire length of the hole?

I just got Scott Macpherson's book on St. Andrews in the mail, so I will begin reading it next...but I was just curious as I was reading Dr. Mackenzie's words if I was reading about the current 11th hole at St. Andrews or something that is long gone.

Thanks in advance,
Mac

[Mac Plumart]

Subtle brilliance.  I am thinking that truly great golf holes are subtly brilliant.  Now that doesn’t mean they can’t have the stunning backdrop of the Pacific Ocean, like Cypress Point, but it does mean that the hole has to have more than meets the eye.

Continuing through “The Spirit of St. Andrews”, I read with great interest how Dr. Mackenzie described the 11th at St. Andrews and the Redan at North Berwick.  When I paused and thought about those holes.  Given I hadn’t played them; I went to pictures in books and internet sites.  Looking at these holes, I wasn’t “blown away” at first blush.  There are no waterfalls, island greens, or other eye popping visual spectacles.  So, then why does one of the greatest architects of all-time consider these two of the greatest holes of all-time?  Subtle brilliance…the slope of the greens, the placement of the bunkers, and the angles of approach.  These things probably go unnoticed by many golfers the first few times the holes are played…but these nuances are learned over time by the observant golfer.

His descriptions remind me of 12 at East Lake.  Standing on the tee box, the hole looks like plain vanilla.  A WIDE open fairway off the tee box, with the exception of one measly set of bunkers off to the right side of the fairway and a big bunker that engulfs the entire front of the green.  But other than that it is not an intimidating tee shot.  However, every time I’ve played it…someone winds up in that fairway bunker.  And the slope of the green is barely noticeable, but it slants away from you and right to left.  Given the firmness and fastness of the greens, if you don’t hit the front of the green…you will have a hard time holding the green.  BUT if you miss the front of the green and you are short…guess what…you are in that trap.  Subtle brilliance.

At least that is my take on what it takes to make an ideal golf hole and an ideal golf course.

Back to my reading.

[Mac Plumart]

Two things...

#1---this is my last post for the day...so you all have that going for you, which is nice!

#2--Reading the next few hole descriptions he talks about the 16th at St. Andrews.  That is a brilliant, brilliant lesson!!  When he released his "Golf Architecture" book, he desribed playing the hole a certain way.  But 20 years later (or so) he has changed his mind as the subtelties of the hole became apparent to him.  Then as he was describing changes he thought would improve the hole a man who had been playing the course for 30 years or so told Dr. Mackenzie his thoughts on the hole.  These comments revealed even more subtle brilliance concerning the hole which even after 20+ years of study by, arguably, the world's great golf course architect was over-looked.  Now that is a GREAT golf hole!!!!!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Does anyone know if there has been any major changes of the hole from then to now?

Obviously Scott's book is the most likely to give you the low down on this...

...But I walked the course again in August and was disappointed to see that the fescue had grown up as rough on the small mound on the left entrance to the green that guards 'Hill' bunker.... For me, that mound absolutely HAS to be mown short... It is a crucial element to the hole as a shot coming off the right side of it will work its way around 'Strath' bunker to the centre of the green... Yet a shot coming off the left side of it should be penalised by ending up in the 'Hill' bunker or rolling back down away from the green...

[Ronald Montesano]

The ideal golf hole is so personal that I cannot dispute Dr. Mac's assessment of  "el once" at The Old Course.  I believe that the perfect golf hole can be found over and over, one of the reasons the game draws us in so easily and retains us for so long.  What I need is pretty simple and I blame the womb.  I love a par five that reminds me of the open spaces of the West, free of restraint, heroic, tumultuous, rambling...eternal like the horizon. 

For that reason, Scott Witter's 15th hole at Gowanda Country Club has everything.  The drive needs to carry some bunkers to find the ideal line down the left.  Too far left and you are stuck.  At the corner of the dogleg, turning left, you careen down (but not too violently) to a fairway wash in front of the elevated green.  It's the type of hole where the great player can hit just in front of the green, on the upslope, and the ball will stop dead, leaving a pitch or chip.  At the same time, the lesser player can bounce the ball off the flat part of the wash and have it jump upward, toward the putting surface.  I could play it again and again...no tree trouble, no water, just golf.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

Its all the ones you really enjoy

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

I apologize for another post on this thread...but I can't help myself.  However, this particular post has nothing to do with the title of this thread...so if you read this, please bear with me.

I have put down "The Spirit of St. Andrews" for tonight and I just read about Dr. Mackenzie's thoughts on hole 4 and 10 and his thoughts on the Old Course in general. 

Here is what gets me...

He talks about seeing new and better ways to play the holes on the course even after decades of study.  The mysteries and subtlties must be unimaginable.  He even says Cypress Point (one of his very own masterpieces) pales in comparison to the brilliance of The Old Course. 

I've talked on other threads about "feeling" a great golf course.  I can only imagine that after playing this course enough times the "magic" or "feeling" must be overwhelming.

Furthermore, I remembered Dr. Brad Klein's book "Rough Mediations" and I re-read his chapter on caddying at St. Andrews and playing it every day for a month.  He was initially planning on caddying his way across Scotland.  You have to have a burning love in your heart and belly for golf to do these types of things.  And the things you learn must be incredible when you do things like this.

I also remember Tom Doak mentioning on my "Courses to Learn from" post that it will take a lifetime of studying these gems to fully appreciate them...or at least he said something like that.  And that it wasn't playing them once and moving to the next one, it was diligent study of the gems, like St. Andrews.

Anyway, I won't bug you all with this thread anymore...but these people are true golf gurus and they seem to share a similiar love for the Old Course.

[Kenny Baer]

Mac,

I agree with what Mac and Doak said completely. 

It is why I would much prefer to play a great golf course 10x then play 1x at 10 different decent courses. In one trip around a golf course you are so limited to what you can understand, see, and appreciate, IMO the better the course the less you will be able to get out of it in just one go-round.

[Ronald Montesano]

I had the opportunity to play the Old Course just once, in the early 1990s.  It went by so quickly that I remember very little beyond specific emotions and terrific play on 17 and 18 (not enough to make up for the previous 16!)

It is certain that I would find myriad ways to play all the holes, were it to become my home course.  I am certain that the Long In hole would take its place in my heart as does the one I mentioned.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I think the 11th on the Old Course is one of the hardest holes to photograph. You can only get a slight suggestion of what the hole is all about and the severity of the slopes, in particular, seems impossible to capture. You really have to stand on that tee to begin to appreciate it, and should your tee shot be less than perfect you really will begin to get a feel for it. Watching the wizards playing that hole in the Open gives little impression of its qualities - I watched ther for several hours in 2005 and nobody missed th putting surface from the tee! As for the 14th, even with its new length, almost everyone was reaching the green in 2 shots using an iron for the 2nd shot. Sickening, isn't it!

Certainly TOC is one course I could play for the rest of my life and never tire of it. True, I haven't played it recently and perhaps taking 5 or 6 hours for a round would blunt the enthusiasm.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

A [very wealthy] friend of mine suggested to me that the ideal way to play St. Andrews was to play as an amateur in the Dunhill Links Tournament.  You get to play three practice rounds plus one competitive round on The Old Course, you get to play the championship hole locations which make it a whole different golf course, and the crowds are all to the sides of the course instead of in front of you.

The down side is that you also have to post a score at Carnoustie. 

[BCrosby]

Mac:

I'm not sure if "blown away" is the right word, but seeing 11th at St. Andrews and the Redan at North Berwick for the first time, you
will be struck by what photos of the holes don't capture.

In the case of the Eden, it is the extreme contouring of the green surrounds. The green is perched on a ridge with steep slopes. And the massive Strath Bunker is dug into the slope at its steepest. Really intimidating. I've seen no copies in the US that come close to capturing that contouring. In that regard, I've always thought the Eden at NGLA was a particulary lame effort.

The Redan was unlike what I expected because of how little of the green surface you can see from the tee. Which heightens the drama considerably. Again, of the Redans I've seen in the States, none capture that aspect very well.

Not sure I agree with you about the 12th at East Lake. Next time hit a 3 wood, take the bunker out of play and you are still left with a lofted club approach to the green. I will confess, however, that I have often failed to take my own advice.

Bob

 

[Mac Plumart]

Bob...

I am sure you are correct on East Lake's 12th hole, but for me it represents something bigger than itself.  Therefore, it is special to me.

East Lake was the 3rd course I ever played and, frankly, I didn't see what the big deal was.

But as I played it more and more and became more educated on golf and golf course design principles, I noticed all the hidden nuances inherent in well designed courses, like East Lake.  I noticed the placement of the fairway bunkers on 12 almost always caught at least one member of my foursome, if not more.  This leads me to believe these bunkers are very well placed for strategic purposes. 

Also, I can't tell you how many times I've seen people hit the center of that green and roll to the back, if not off the back.  The firmness, fastness, and slope of that green gets a lot of people. 

And of course the greenside bunker spanning the entire front of the green seems to catch a few guys as well.  And then you are hitting a sandshot out of that bunker onto a firm and fast green that slopes away from you.

Playing that hole has simply been a real world learning experience for me and I find it interesting.  maybe we can play it together next year and you can show me the right way to play it!

Let me know if are available and I'll set it up!

[Bill_McBride]

Mac, looking back at your post #2, pretty far down you say: "...why does one of the greatest architects of all-time consider these two of the greatest holes of all-time?  Subtle brilliance…the slope of the greens, the placement of the bunkers, and the angles of approach.  These things probably go unnoticed by many golfers the first few times the holes are played…but these nuances are learned over time by the observant golfer."

I have to tell you, there is really nothing subtle about either of those holes.  Brilliant yes, but not subtle.

#11 the Eden at St Andrews, the slope of the green back to front is absolutely terrifying, it is so steep.  Nothing subtle there.  The bunkers are perfectly placed and deep as hell.  Nothing subtle there either.  "Terrifying" and "subtle" don't really go hand in hand.

#15 Redan at North Berwick, I guess that's more subtle just because you can't see the putting surface, but "subtle" is not an adjective I would apply when discussing the hole.  "Demanding" yes.

Just my thoughts on two of the great par 3s in the world.  And I agree with Bob Crosby, there are no Edens that I've seen that are close to the equal of the St Andrews Eden.  I think Macdonald for whatever reason was just reluctant to have a green with that much slope.  The Strath bunker is usually a bit more offset to the right as well.

[Mac Plumart]

Bill...

Good stuff.  I simply need to get my butt to Scotland.  I've looked at the pictures of those holes and I guess I simply can't see it.

Mark's post talks about how hard the hole (the 11th the Eden) is to photograph to that you only get a slight suggestion of what the hole is about.  Your post further reinforces that.

Thanks!

Mac

PS...one of my next posts was going to be asking about all the different hole types.  Redan is one I've studied and I've learned about the Biarritz on this site, but I've yet to see some good stuff on the Eden.  Per your post, I've got a great starting point.

Thanks!! (again)

[Mac Plumart]

Interesting reading Dr. Mackenzie's comments related to the 14th at The Old Course...

"...the hole is made by the slope of the green.  There is a most marked tilt up from left to right, so much so that it is impossible to approach near the hole from the right.

It is slopes of this kind that are so often overlooked in designing a golf course...it is the subtleties of this nature that make all the difference between a good course and a bad one."

[Bill_McBride]

Bill...

Good stuff.  I simply need to get my butt to Scotland.  I've looked at the pictures of those holes and I guess I simply can't see it.

Mark's post talks about how hard the hole (the 11th the Eden) is to photograph to that you only get a slight suggestion of what the hole is about.  Your post further reinforces that.

Thanks!

Mac

PS...one of my next posts was going to be asking about all the different hole types.  Redan is one I've studied and I've learned about the Biarritz on this site, but I've yet to see some good stuff on the Eden.  Per your post, I've got a great starting point.

Thanks!! (again)

George Bahto's great book, The Evangelist of Golf, about the life and courses of C.B. Macdonald and Seth Raynor, is probably the best source material for the famous template holes.  Look for it on Amazon.com, it's a really good investment with good photos and diagrams of the holes and courses.

[Chris Cupit]

Mac:

I'm not sure if "blown away" is the right word, but seeing 11th at St. Andrews and the Redan at North Berwick for the first time, you
will be struck by what photos of the holes don't capture.

In the case of the Eden, it is the extreme contouring of the green surrounds. The green is perched on a ridge with steep slopes. And the massive Strath Bunker is dug into the slope at its steepest. Really intimidating. I've seen no copies in the US that come close to capturing that contouring. In that regard, I've always thought the Eden at NGLA was a particulary lame effort.

The Redan was unlike what I expected because of how little of the green surface you can see from the tee. Which heightens the drama considerably. Again, of the Redans I've seen in the States, none capture that aspect very well.

Not sure I agree with you about the 12th at East Lake. Next time hit a 3 wood, take the bunker out of play and you are still left with a lofted club approach to the green. I will confess, however, that I have often failed to take my own advice.

Bob

  

If you get the chance try Camargo in Cincinnati.  Maybe the best collection of par threes anywhere with a redan, eden, biarritz and a short that are phenomenal.  The redan is invisible except for a sliver of the front right and contains a shelf section that is a neat twist.

The eden is outstanding and the rear "estuary bunker" is even more in play than at St. Andrews as the green is not as pitched and the greens are also very firm and difficult to hold at times.  

ANyway, I can do no justice with my words--check out the pics from this site.  Camargo's one shotters are tough to beat.

Mac--we need to get you out to more courses--East Lake can't be your frame of reference for inspiration     zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and the routing?!?

[Mac Plumart]

Chris...

Very interesting comments.  Like I said, East Lake at first impression was not that outstanding to me.  However, the more I've learned about architecture and East Lake's subtlties the more I respect it.  It is a real world learning experiment for me, like I've mentioned.

The front nine is excellent in my mind.  One interesting and new challenge after another, I could go hole by hole...but I will spare you. 

The back nine is weird to me.  Hunter talks about that fact that it is not ideal to have parrellel holes on a golf course.  And 12-16 at East Lake are, indeed, parrell.  Of those holes, I really like 12 and 15...but 14 and 16 are almost the same hole..aren't they?  But then 17 and 18 are truly memorable holes.  I LOVE 17!!!  Some consider it unplayable and criticize it, but isn't that what Mackenzie says make a great hole?

Concerning seeing others courses...I am working on it and having a blast doing it!!!  In the 2 plus years I've been playing I think I've got a decent amount of courses seen and studied but there are many, many more I need to experience. 

[BCrosby]

Chris/Mac -

On a related note, most older players at East Lake will tell you that the old, NLE No.2 course was better than the surviving course. A couple of us are trying to put together a history of No.2. It will be based on old aerials and recollections of people like Charlie Harrison and Linton Hopkins. Unlike the existing EL (which was a Ross redesign), No. 2 was an original Ross.

If either of you know anyone who was familiar with the old No. 2 course, please IM me. We are trying to gather what recollections we can.

Bob

P.S. Chris - I've not played Camargo. I would love to someday.

[Chris Cupit]

BC,

I played around 60 rounds or so at the old EL before it was ruined...er, re-done.  I played there from 1984-1989 or so in both high schoool and college related stuff.

Holes I think were really a shame to lose:

#2 with the steep right bank fall off
#4  played as a 470 or so par 4 back in the days of balata and wood with the huge right fairway bunker and the green pushed well up the hill and guarded by the long skinny right front bunker
#5  Another scary-hard par 4 with a blind drive between the OB and old range (remember the yellow range balls?) and the oval green nestled into the hill.  Although, the oval shape was most likely the result of lazy mowing patterns over the years.
#6  The new look is "cleaner" but I liked the lower profile of the old green and the bunkering seemdd nestled against the green better.
#8  Losing the civil war trench sucked as the old drive was a terrific view and gave you multiple options which no longer exist.  The new green is abysmal--along with #12 I don't get the "moat defense" at all.  Ugly, ugly and requiring a one dimensional shot.
#9  Old L shaped green was quite unique especially since the front tongue was actually useable.
#10  a unique par 4 with the intimidating tee shot due to the left OB and the roundish green semi-hidden with the way left  and short fairway/greenside bunker adding to the deception.
#11  What's not to like about an uphill, 220 yard, dogleg right par 3??  The entrance was so narrow (think Winged Foot West #3) it really did almost reqwuire a single file entrance.  Anything pulled left took off into the pecans and dirt near the fence.   OK maybe it needed some tree trimming but it's a yawner now.
#12  Old 12 wasn't great but why the need to literally copy the same green from 8 to 12? 
#14  Maybe the neatest old green on the course--rumples everywhere.  New green is sterile.
#17  I really loved the old, elevated green. I don't know what more to say than that.  The bunkers surrounding its front (narrow entrance but steepness prevented run up shots) meant a nice stroll from the green to 18 tee versus the small climb of today.
But, water is sexy and people like the newly sexed up hole?
#18  Green was reshaped and the "roundness" of the tier in the green was lost and there is yet another sharply tiered green on the course. 

I just hate the accentuation of the tiers on greens in general.  They play really hard for most golfers who have little real distance control and better players are unfazed by them. 

[Mac Plumart]

Bob...I will check out my contacts and see if I can get anything useful to you.

Chris...great stuff.  Here are some random thoughts on the "new" East Lake...

I am with you 100% on the bunker engulfing the entire front of the green on 8 and 12...but I would throw in 17 as well.  Perhaps the green is somewhat different, but it tests the same shot (essentially) three times.  I don't get that.

You talked about the accentuated tiers of the green.  I would add in the hardness/firmness of the greens as well.  Take these two and add in flat out speed and everytime I play it with someone who has never played it before, the greens and approach shots into the green throw them for a huge loop.  At times this frustration throws them off their game for the entire round.  I think these greens boarder on unplayable...but perhaps I am wrong.  I have never played greens this rock hard.  I've heard people say it is the sub-air systems that pulls the water out of the green...but I've played other courses with that system (TPC Sawgrass for instance) and they are not nearly as hard.  I have also heard they will soften up as the new grass on the greens matures...but I am not educated enough to know for sure.

It sounds like the old East Lake was better in your mind...I never played it so I can't comment.  I like the front nine very much...while I am okay with the back, but it is not nearly as good in my mind.  For whatever it is worth, here is a list of the courses I have played since I've been playing golf beginning in late 2007)...

Kiawah Ocean  Course
Pete Dye GC of WV
Sea Island--Seaside
Cascata
Inverness
Cuscowilla
Currahee
East Lake
Augusta Country Club
Atlanta Athletic Club
Atlanta Country Club
Black Diamond (Quarry)
Southshore
Country Club of Columbus
Piedmont Driving Club
Longaberger
River Club
TPC Sawgrass
The Standard Club
St. Ives
Achasta
Druid Hills
GC of GA
World Woods Pine Barrens
Lookout Mountain
Long Shadow
Sea Island--Plantation
CC Of Sapphire Valley
TPC Sugarloaf
Bears Best ATL
Bears Best LV
Great Waters
Crabapple
Ponte Vedra
Legends at Chateau Elan
Creek Club
Stonehouse
St. Marlo
Rio Secco
Charlie Yates
River Pines
GT Club
The Hooch


Great stuff guys...thanks!!

[BCrosby]

Chris -

I played EL a lot over the same years as you and largely share your thoughts about what was lost. Most painful was losing 10 as a par 4 along the fence line, imho. The redos of the 8th and 12th greens still grate every time I see them. I actually like the changes to the  4th and 5th holes.

BTW, Ross' 17th green was roughly where the current green is. I don't know why it was moved it up the hill to the right. I agree with you though, that green on the hill was very good. A much more interesting second shot. Also the 8th was a long par three as late as WWII. Not sure when it was redone. (George Cobb in '61?)

My original question was actually about the old No. 2 course that was paved over in 1976 or so. It was where parts of the Charlie Yates course and the Drew School are now. An area with much more interesting topography than the existing course and, by all accounts, had some terrific holes.    

Bob

[Jason Topp]

I think the 11th on the Old Course is one of the hardest holes to photograph. You can only get a slight suggestion of what the hole is all about and the severity of the slopes, in particular, seems impossible to capture. You really have to stand on that tee to begin to appreciate it, and should your tee shot be less than perfect you really will begin to get a feel for it. Watching the wizards playing that hole in the Open gives little impression of its qualities - I watched ther for several hours in 2005 and nobody missed th putting surface from the tee! As for the 14th, even with its new length, almost everyone was reaching the green in 2 shots using an iron for the 2nd shot. Sickening, isn't it!

In addition to the ground features, the wind seemed much stronger at that end of the course the two times I played.

[Mac Plumart]

I am curious to people's opinions who've played Pebble Beach and Pasatiempo.

On Pebble, would anyone argue against holes 3, 8, and 18 as being the best holes on that course?

On Pasatiempo, does anyone have any thoughts concerning 16?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()