building to a crescendo

[PThomas]

Adam C's post (thanks Adam!) on the Whistling Straits/Blackwolf Run thread helped me put into words an issue I've had in the back of my mind for awhile:

does a course need to build up to a crescendo?  can, as Adam related about Shadow Creek, one get burnt out if the if a course has too much greatness right away?

i dont understand that:  shouldnt a great course have as many absolutely great holes as possible?  isnt that what many people say about Pine Valley/why its so great:  that there isnt a weak hole out there? 

another example:  look at Sand Hills:  not a mild/routine opener by any means...NGLA, etc., etc

why wouldnt you want to make every hole as absolutely as great as possible?? 

i look forward to your thoughts, thx

[Phil McDade]

Paul:

I'm going to sound like Huckaby here, but I know of some threads in the past that have discussed this. The best analogy that many have made is that of a symphony -- it shouldn't all be blaring trumpets. I personally like courses with a certain ebb and flow; one course I profiled not long ago -- Milwaukee CC -- has this in spades, where rugged holes are followed by those less so, with a little bit of quirk thrown in there, leading to a terrific finish. I think Lawsonia also has elements of this.

[Mac Plumart]

Harbour Town is the best pacing (rather than routing) I have ever seen.  It begins in the tight and twisty tree lined corridors, but over time it gives hints of opening up...like seeing that HUGE bunker on 13, then 16 feels kind of wide open but you've got that damn tree blocking a direct approach to the green...and then BOOM the stairway to heaven walks you right to the 17th tee and 17th green and the course opens itself to the waterway and the feeling of tight tree lined corridors fades and the vastness of the 18th fairway is such a mind blowing feeling it is almost overwhelming.

The Golf Club is kind of like that as well, but less dramatic as the tree lined corridors aren't as tight as Harbour Town, so the course's shifting feel to openess on hole 13 isn't as dramatic.  But nevertheless, the stretch of holes from 13-17 is absolutely incredible.

[Tim Bert]

I think you want ever hole to be as great as possible, but even on great courses with wonderful holes throughout there are degrees of greatness.  Some holes are going to be 'better', 'more fun', 'more enjoyable', 'greater' - whatever term you want to use (and some may use some of those terms interchangeably.  For my taste, you wouldn't want too many of the greatest holes to appear too soon in the mix, or it may diminish the experience of some of the later holes that may still be great in their own right but not as good as the best the course has to offer.  Ideally, a course would have multiple crescendos, some smaller and some larger, not just one.

Spyglass is a course that gets much mentioned here.  Right out of the gate it throws all of its glory at you.  The course is pretty good throughout, but the rest of the course probably suffers a little from people trying to draw an unfair comparison to the first 5 holes.  That being said, it still seems to be a little over-rated in most lists, at least in my opinion, so maybe the course doesn't suffer from that start at all.  

[Tom Dunne]

Sure, but great holes possess many different personalities--some are obviously great, others are more quiet and reveal their depth of character over time.

The idea of building to a crescendo doesn't necessarily mean that the holes that are a part of the buildup aren't great, too--they just serve a different purpose. Merion is a great example of this; it builds tension (and escalates challenge) beautifully before the dramatic finale. A first-rate routing has a natural rhythm, one in which the architect not only knows how to locate and design great holes, but how to place them in a sequence that's rewarding for the golfer.  



 

[John Moore II]

I think building to a finish and having the best holes at the end are not really the same thing. You can build to a really good finish with less than great holes. Torrey Pines builds to a good finish, but those aren't that great holes. Same with Pebble. But you don't have to have 15 average holes and then 3 great ones at the end. Its all about the feeling that the closing stretch gives you; the chance to really work yourself back into a round.

[Phil McDade]

Its all about the feeling that the closing stretch gives you; the chance to really work yourself back into a round.

John:

Can you explain this a bit more? The final holes should be chances for scoring, moreso than earlier in the round? Just curious...

[John Moore II]

Its all about the feeling that the closing stretch gives you; the chance to really work yourself back into a round.

John:

Can you explain this a bit more? The final holes should be chances for scoring, moreso than earlier in the round? Just curious...

Well, I don't think you want the three hardest holes on the course to close out the round. I mean, Ran noted in his review of Pine Valley that 17 offers the chance at a semi-easy birdie and then 18 as a great closer. Its the same at St. Andrews, though at TOC, 17 is a back breaker and then 18 offers a real birdie chance right at the end. Its easily possible for a player to make up 2 or 3 shots (or 2 holes) on an opponent right at the close of a round. I think mostly for me, however, its just a certain feel/vibe that I get after I have played the holes. I mean, doesn't it make slightly more sense to have the 3 best holes as the last 3 rather than the first 3? That way people leave the course on a high note.

[Jeff Goldman]

I think the answer is obvious--it depends. The greatest courses are unique, and often break "the rules". Ross said to start with a handshake, yet Oakmont, winged foot and augusta start with one of the most difficult on the course. Want a crescendo?  Two of the best holes on the planet are 3 and 4 at NGLA.Adam generally dislike manufactured stuff and purely aerial courses without options, yet BWR is both (WS has far more options).Great is great.

[Phil McDade]

John:

Thanks for the clarification. I think the final hole or holes ought to be representative of the course -- not necessarily the best or toughest, but ones that provide similar challenges to what's been found in the preceding 15 or so, amped up a bit (on a handicap scale, the last hole in my mind ought to be one of the nine hardest on the card, and preferably among the top six -- not that I'm formulaic or anything. )

To me, a course that does this very well is Milwaukee CC; see 17 and 18 in this thread. To me, 17 is the toughest and best par 3 on the course, a real tough test. 18 isn't the hardest par 4 on the course, but it's tough, and its challenges encapsulate what's come before. (Milwaukee CC generally, as I mentioned before, is a real "symphonic" course in my mind.)

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36505.0/

[Adam Clayman]

I openly admit to my sentimental bias, as it relates to BWR. I don't hold it in the pantheon of select courses, BUT, It was a different time (early 90's) and the start of my GC experiences outside of the Chicagoland area. Not until reading this website, and then thinking back 7 years, about how I felt about the differences in the two courses, (The River-Valley (Original GC) and the current River course) did I have the appreciations for the subject, I think Paul is interested in discussing. That feeling is exemplified, and, in my mind magnified, at BWR when one compares the two different courses,

The added nine holes that comprise the 5th through 13th holes of the River course, are all very fine golf holes. They just don't do the whole journey justice the way the Valley nine does.  The current finish on the River, are the old 5th-9th holes. How could that be a great finish? Maybe I gave/give Pete too much credit for his design abilities? but Maybe I trusted his instincts when he discovered (routed) the original course. And appreciate more so, than most, how and why those holes are placed where they are placed in the routing?.
IMO, the original was a masterpiece that was torn in half, so that Herb could get 36 holes on his property, not just the 18. Maybe I resent that too?


Jeff, I feel Pete always gives options. They are just a different type of option than those found on great links courses. Playing within ones self, taking the safe play is always possible on his designs of that era. (Alice's influence no doubt) No kick plates to play, because of the era of soft and lush, but thoughtful design options, nonetheless.

Paul, Since the definition of great holes is so subjective, the sequence of holes becomes even more important. I'm not eloquent enough to put into words a great answer to your questions, but I can give examples of courses where the sum is greater than it's parts. In other words, not every hole need be a world beater for the course to be a great one. The most obvious is of course Pebble. Jasper Park is another. Cypress Point works on many levels within this discussion. Mike Devries at Greywalls throws out all convention with his home hole, and it works perfectly, imo. Pinion Hills changing of their configuration, is another i.e. of how collections of holes, do not necessarily make it great. But, in the right order, there's a sense of adventure that's magnified by the ebb and flow of the route.

Repeatedly taxing any golfer mentally, be it with aesthetic overload, or, character of terrain, is not reflective of a balance. A major core principle, not only for the medium, but the sport, too.

John Moore, Did you just try to cross the line, equating greatness with difficulty?

[JC Urbina]

The idea that a golf course should get better as you near the end is not one of my requirements for a great golf course.  Should  the 18th hole really be the best one of all?

 A few of my favorites that don't follow that criteria.

Cypress Point,
St Andrews,
Prairie Dunes

 A few others that don't meet that standard.

Augusta National
Shinnecock
Garden City

 

[John Moore II]

Adam-No, I did not intend to equate greatness with difficulty, however, it is a good point to mention. How many great holes are 'easy' or without options? I mean, even 17 at TPC Sawgrass has options to a certain degree. Great holes must have options, and what can be certainly said about options is that one is probably going to lead to an easier play than the others. 17 and 18 at Oakmont also build into a real good climax to the round.

[Jaeger Kovich]

The only course I can come up with that truely is at its highest point on 18 is Carnoustie. While at Ballyneal this weekend I asked a lot of people what the best #18 is and nobody had a confident answer. Although I came up with carnoustie later on my own, it may be the only course where the finishing stretch is clearly the best part of the course. It seems like the rest that are close really crescendo on #17.

[Adam Clayman]

As JCU states, a courses crescendo need not be at the very end of the round. In tyhe BWR example I feel the crescendo ocurrs arount the 14th & 15th holes ( natures course and mercy) with a huge nod to the drive on 16. (Original routing of course). In Ballyneals case the very best holes come early (7 n but the way the design flows from there is so solid, it makes the sequence better than the individually great holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is the inference that architects build mediocre holes in the begining and mid section of a course and save their best work for the finishing holes ?

Do architects intentionally route and design courses to build to a crescendo ?

Wouldn't that imply that they intentionally dumbed down the early holes ?

[PThomas]

Is the inference that architects build mediocre holes in the begining and mid section of a course and save their best work for the finishing holes ?

Do architects intentionally route and design courses to build to a crescendo ?

Wouldn't that imply that they intentionally dumbed down the early holes ?

good questions Patrick.....I'm hoping more architects chime in besides JC....

[PThomas]

here's some related thoughts from Miek Keiser in his interview in GolbalGolfPost:

he was asked to finish the following " A good golf architect"...Mike said "builds interesting,aesthetically attractive courses and each hole is a work of art unto itself.  Each hole is unique.  Each hole is beautiful. Each hole is engaging.Pine Valley has 18 good holes. Everyone agrees..."

i dont think Mike wants any mundane holes on his courses!

[Mac Plumart]

Pat...

I believe Ross said he liked to ease a player into the round.

[Adam Clayman]

Pat, I don't think that's the inference. The architect can only build holes the site allows him to build. The choosing of which routing, and sequencing, that makes the final cut, should have the best balance from the entire field of which to choose.

The constellation map, is a great example of how an almost infinite number of holes could have been built. But, it was the architects decision on which ones, made the best course, is what makes that course one of the best. Don't you think that's true?

At Ballyneal, the decision to melt down the ninth fairway was the key to it's routings jigsaw puzzle. Maybe Kye or Tom, or Jim can chime in on which the great holes would have been lost, if that key decision was different. Or how BN would've been different?

So, I highly doubt there's an attempt to dumb down holes early to make the best routing, but, it's the decision on where and when the best holes should fall, that makes the routing of the course the most important aspect. Conversely, a poor choice, or change in configuration, can alter the best possible course. Same would be true on selecting the location of the clubhouse, no?

In the case of Shadow Creek, I doubt Mr. Fazio dumbed down the early holes. He just didn't want be left with nowhere to go but down, if he was asked to design great hole after great hole from the first hole on. He ended up designing solid holes throughout the course. Would you agree?

[John Moore II]

Is the inference that architects build mediocre holes in the begining and mid section of a course and save their best work for the finishing holes ?

No, I don't think that is the inference. But don't you agree that the first '3' holes aught not to be the best and then the last '3' be of a lesser quality? I think, assuming the routing will allow for this, the best holes should come at the end, with the average and filler holes coming early in the round. That way, if compromise and mediocre holes are necessary, they are not the last thing the player remembers when he walks off the course at the end of the day.

Do architects intentionally route and design courses to build to a crescendo ?

When the best architects build on the best sites with few limitations, yes, they probably do built to a crescendo.

Wouldn't that imply that they intentionally dumbed down the early holes ?

Not always. I suppose the first few and the last few should be the best with the average holes and filler holes coming in the middle of the round. That way, the player starts the round on a good note, capturing his attention, and then finishing on a high note to have the best possible memory of the course.

[Bill Brightly]

My favorite courses are ones that build to a series of crescendos throughout the round and the best example I can give is Pacific Dunes.

I guess you could call the first two holes a "friendly handshake" and then it is WOW when you see the third tee.



Then that hole builds to a "louder" crescendo within itself, culminating with a breathtaking walk up the hill for a great view of the Pacific.





But what struck me most about the routing is the view BEYOND the 3rd green when you think: "Wow, we are going to play golf on that great piece of land below!"  Well, no, you are NOT! You are making a left and coming back to that later.  I wonder how many other great courses tease you like that?

[Phil McDade]

Bill:

Machrihanish did that, for me. Back in 1999, when I played it, you could some really cool dunes beyond where the course turned and headed back to the clubhouse -- now the site of Machrihanish Dunes.

[Tim Gavrich]

At TOC, I love how the course comes to its climax at the 17th green.  The fact that the 18th is a short, relatively easy par 4 makes it a perfect denouement.  And for that very reason, I cannot imagine a soul who could walk off that green and not wish to head straight over to the first tee again.  At a course like Carnoustie, I could see the golfer being so drained that he might rather call it a day after holing out on 18.  My home course in SC, Pawleys Plantation, is more like the Carnoustie case, ending with two ~445 yard par 4s sandwiched around a tough par 3.  But, the first hole is a par 5, which makes the prospect of starting a second round a little more palatable.

In short, I think both can work.  I am bummed when I play a golf course whose best holes are earlier on, but this doesn't mean an architect should intentionally restrict the greatness of the first few holes; (s)he just needs to keep it up for all 18 holes!

[PThomas]

At TOC, I love how the course comes to its climax at the 17th green.  The fact that the 18th is a short, relatively easy par 4 makes it a perfect denouement. 

why do you feel that way Tim...just curious...thx

[Tags:]

Tags: