No. 18: Is "tough" overvalued?

[Mark Saltzman]

Watching play going and coming from the house is such a joy that it should be a priority to provide it - golf is afterall a social game and that should be something archies keep in mind.

Ciao

Sean:

That statement is the cliche about finishing holes I hate the most ... the part about the 18th green needing to be in full sight.  I just don't like anyone putting out rules like that, because the best solution will often conflict with such a rule.

I understand and agree with your goal to make a strong connection between clubhouse and course, just like we both want greens and tees to be close together.  I love courses that do this well.  A little place like Kilspindie, with its first tee and eighteenth green just a few steps from the clubhouse, comes to mind.

But, I don't care much whether the clubhouse overlooks the finishing green, because in my experience, not that many people really watch other groups finish.  No one at Pine Valley watches, for example.  No one at Augusta National watches, unless they have binoculars.  And both those courses are generally considered to be okay.

Tom

Sometimes good design is a cliche.  I wouldn't say a connection between course and house is a rule or essential, but there is no way I would fault an archie for making a huge effort to do so.  Starting and finishing near the house is good design period.  To me its more a question of why would you not want to and what is to be gained because its a serious blow to the routing if the house is isolated.  The proximity may not provide for the best hole (again, in this day and age I fail to see how a good archie can't create a good hole from practically any piece of land), but the best holes don't necessarily translate to the best course.  Every club I have been a member of where the first and/or the 18th (9th and 10th or whatever as well) is easily viewable has plenty of folks looking on.  In general, I think golfers like to see their mates and fellow members hit a shot or two from the comfort of a good vantage point.   I would also add that in general folks don't have a clue if a better hole could have been built with the sacrifice of proximity to the house and you wouldn't find many that would think its good to start/finish a hike from the house.  

Ciao

I haven't been there in a few years, but as I recall the 18th green at Oakmont is right in front of the casual restaurant in the clubhouse.  After I hit the front of the green (to a back pin), my host told that there could be $100s or $1000s of dollars bet on whether I would two-putt (no pressure, right?).  In my opinion, many golfers like watching others come in. While probably not a necessity, I think having an 18th green near a clubhouse (and a 1st tee for that matter) gives golfers the opportunity to watch their friends come in, and also puts some pressure on the golfer knowing that his friends might be watching him.

[JR Potts]

Really Pat,

Think about the great golf courses from the early part of the 20th century...a hell of a high ration of good hard finishing holes in there. Did the independent green committees go out in 1950 and make them more difficult?

Jim, If you made a statistical comparison, I think you'll find that most 18th holes are moderate to benign versus difficult.

Many courses were forced to make them harder in an effort to court the USGA/PGA/etc.

[Doug Siebert]

I tend to agree with you, but how do you square this view with your stated dislike of the 18th at my beloved Reddish Vale?  The 18th green lies just below the clubhouse but at the top of a steep 100ft climb from the fairway. If the green was to be in the proximity of the house it is difficult to see how the climb you so hate could be avoided.



Perhaps the green at the bottom of the hill and a ski-lift back up to the clubhouse?

Duncan,

For my part, I have no problem with that climb, I love a good steep uphill hole.  But that hole looks positively claustrophobic!  This would appear to be a great example of exactly the type of penal finisher I really dislike.  Very narrow, and a relatively small miss in either direction would appear to be lost or unplayable.

Can you please illuminate us as to why you consider this a worthy finisher?

[Sean_A]

Doug

I think the hole dreadful not only because of a grade which is far too steep, but also because the fairway corridor is too narrow.  That said, I don't see what else Dr Mac could do - the routing does get the best of the land.  The house obviously has to stay up top with #s 1-5 if only because that is where the "street level" is.  Either side of the 18th fairway is like a cliff and would require serious reshaping to widen the fairway.  Set aside the awkward routing for the 18th and 16th and Reddish Vale really becomes a very charming course.  Its still worth a good look if you are in the general vicinty.

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

Doug,

As Sean says, the fairway is a narrow spur of land which drops away steeply on either side to the river. This spur is the only place on the property where it would be possible to connect the two halves of the course - everywhere else is too steep to walk up - never mind play golf up!



This is a view down the spur which the 18th shares with the 6th - a spectacular 240 yd downhill par 3. This is my son Dan playing from the winter tee. The 18th green is just behind him.




I'm not suggesting that the 18th at Reddish Vale is a great hole; it is however a unique challenge and definitely a talking point amongst any who play it. It was also an unavoidable inevitability when it came to MacKenzie laying out the course. It is impossible to see what alternative he could have come up with, given the lie of the land.


If anyone fancies a round at Reddish Vale just give me a shout.


Just think yourself lucky you don't have to play the 18th three or four times a week!

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't believe that anyone has mentioned that many modern courses have tough finishers because they are often uphill as a result of clubhouse placement on a high point...

Maybe that goes without saying...

[Phil McDade]

Dan:

Here's a cop-out -- it depends.

I don't see the 18th hole as necessarily needing to be tough, or easy, but appropriate with the rest of the course, and an ending that "makes sense," if that makes any sense at all.

In other words, I think the 18th ought to fit with what the designer is trying to accomplish, and what the land provides. I've always thought the 18th at The Old Course was a neat finisher -- not just that if fits snugly into a corner of town, or that it provides a real chance for birdie or eagle. More importantly, to me, it "fits" with the rest of the course -- a short, driveable hole similar to others on the course, yet immediately following a very tough, half-par (on the plus/bogey side) 17th. To me, the 18th at Augusta National (to name another well known 18th) has always been a bit of a mis-fit hole -- a dogleg right on a course filled with dogleg lefts, neither too hard or too easy. It works OK, and has provided its share of interesting moments because in can be birdied as well as bogied. But a bit out of character, for my tastes. The 18th at Pebble Beach wholly fits with that course -- not just the ocean along the entire side, but a smallish green, that's a tricky read, and a difficult up-and-down for those missing the green.

Three of the better 18ths in Wisconsin -- Lawsonia (par 5 -- Langford/Moreau), Milwaukee CC (par 4 -- Alison and perhaps Colt), and Ozaukee CC (par 4 -- Langford/Moreau) -- are all wonderful holes that fit perfectly with what the architects did with the rest of the course. I'll try to post some pics later today.

[JESII]

Really Pat,

Think about the great golf courses from the early part of the 20th century...a hell of a high ration of good hard finishing holes in there. Did the independent green committees go out in 1950 and make them more difficult?

Jim, If you made a statistical comparison, I think you'll find that most 18th holes are moderate to benign versus difficult.

If you'll define the term benign in this context I'll do a statistical analysis. I'm not interested in doing it before you set the terms though...

[Matthew Petersen]

Phil,

You brought up Wisconsin and so my thoughts turned to Whistling Straits. I have only seen the course on TV and there's plenty that looks like fun and quite a bit that mystifies me. Nonetheless, I've always thought 9 and 18 are terribly out of place for the course. I like the restraint in keeping the clubhouse off the cliffs but it definitely makes for two holes that end the nines that really seem out of character with the rest of the course.

That's my issue with any 18th. I just want it to seem logical.

One 18 I like is a reachable downhill par 5 with water on the right. It comes after two brutal holes and gives you a chance to either make an eagle or a really big number. It's perfect in its placement of the course and fits the course stylistically. That's an arguably easy hole, since eagle is a real possibility (and par is simply had if you play for par and not for gusto). That's 18 at Grayhawk Raptor, which is far from a perfect course, but certainly ends nicely.

On the other hand, Southern Dunes in Maricopa is a far better course than Grayhawk and the 18th there would be fine except that they added a completely unnecessary lake. It's a long, difficult par 4 straight into the wind--that much is fitting with the course. It is a layout with a nice mix of driveable holes, drive and pitch holes, and beasts--after 16 and 17, another beast seems like the right way to finish. But there's that damn lake hugging the right side of the green, on what is otherwise a very dry, desert (but not desert-style)course. And, I know some kind drainage lake is probably necessary on the property. But putting it in play for the 18th is just so cliche. That hole kills me.

[Tom ORourke]

Sometimes the 18th can just be an interesting hole. Llanerch in Philly has a par 4 that is under 300 yards as #18. I was once playing there in US Am qualifying and I made a 3, one playing partner a 4, the other holed out from 60 yards for 2. Crazy green, big tree right, stream left, it is a pretty cool hole, no matter where it falls on the card. I heard talk that some members wanted the hole lengthened to make it more of a championship finish. That would mean moving the club house, which is probably the real reason behind the movement.Just give me a hole where you can make a variety of numbers while still being fair.

[George Pazin]

I don't believe that anyone has mentioned that many modern courses have tough finishers because they are often uphill as a result of clubhouse placement on a high point...

Maybe that goes without saying...

It would be interesting to see some sort of study. If I were a bettin' man, I'd guess more are downhill, or at least downhill-ish, than uphill on modern courses because they figure you're riding...

-----

For me, it all depends on how a hole is tough, and that goes for any hole. But everyone knows I am fixated on not having death penalty hazards, so it surely doesn't surprise anyone. I'll take the brutes of Oakmont, Riviera or Winged Foot or something like that over the brutes at Sawgrass, Whistling Straits or Doral any day of the week.

[Phil McDade]

Matthew:

The thing about the 18th at WStraits (and the 9th, for that matter) is that Dye was somewhat constrained with the site. He had only so much lakefront footage to work with, and so all par 3s (3, 7, 12 and 17) were put on the lakeside on/overlooking the cliffs, along with four other holes (4, 8, 13 and 16). Four other holes run roughly parallel to those ones, with lake views, but not on the edge of the lake.

One of the big issues with the property was the massive wooded ravine, with a stream running through it, that divides the two nines. I think Dye has said the ravine was too cumbersome to incorporate directly into the design through traversing it, and he was sort of forced into something of a figure-8 design for 14 of the holes, given Herb Kohler's wish to have as many lake-fronting holes as possible (without all of them running in a row -- kind of the way Pebble Beach weaves in and out of the ocean-front holes with its design).

So with eight holes directly on the lake, and another six paralleling those for ease of access to the lake-fronting holes (in a figure 8 design), Dye essentially had to build two holes on each nine to get out to the figure-8 holes and then back, and then use the ravine in some meaningful way. Thus 9 and 18 skirt the ravine, 18 playing over it in some cases, and 10 (Dye's favorite hole on the course) incoporpating it as well on the drive.

I haven't played 18, only having walked the course. I know it has its share of detractors, moreso probably after the PGA debacle. I like it as a finishing hole, although it's not obviously lakeside, because it looks like a tough SOB, and fits with Kohler and Dye's vision for that course.