A Little Devil

[Tim_Weiman]

From time to time I think about the question: What have golf architects NOT already done?

I must confess that thinking of exciting properties where I would like to see a golf course someday is easier than thinking of entirely new kinds of golf holes that could be built. But, lately I’ve been thinking of what I’ll call “a little devil”, i.e., a REALLY short par 3 of perhaps no more than 75-80 yards.

I’m curious whether the group feels such a hole could be built and whether it could be interesting to BOTH expert and average golfers.

Could this be done? What would it mean in terms of green size, configuration, slope, etc.?

P.S. If this has already been done, I’d be interested to hear about it, but please exclude holes in the 100-110 yard range (e.g., #7 at Pebble Beach).

[Jack_Marr]

Torrequebrada Golf Club has a par 3 that's 85 yds. I think they played the Spanish Open there a number of years ago.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tim,

Located between Shinnecock, National and Maidstone, there is a Alfred Tull course in the famous East End of Long Island. There is a 5th hole which is a 66 or so yard Par 3. There are two bunkers that reach up and guard the green, which is a son of a b to hit.

Poxabogue Golf Course is a favorite of my playing partner Dylan Sweeney. And while it may be listed as a "Executive Course", there is some interesting architecture out there for those who drive past it on their way to Maidstone.

[A_Clay_Man]

Missing links at Mequon is comprised of eight 3's and one par 4. I recall two holes in the yardage you prescribe and both would say "you rang" when and if someone said "little devil?".

[Tom_Doak]

The old "two or twenty" hole at Engineers was, I believe, 94 yards to a slightly fallaway green.

And somewhere recently I did read of a 90-yard hole on a new course -- I don't remember where.  Frankly, though, if anyone does this today it will just be for the "newsworthy gimmick" factor, just like the par-6 hole and the 8,000-yard golf course.

I'm not saying that you couldn't make a really interesting hole of less than 100 yards -- I'm sure it could be done well.  I just don't believe someone will do it on the merits, as opposed to doing it for the publicity value of "breaking the rules."

Have any of the architects on this site ever seriously considered building a hole of less than 100 yards?  Would you??

[tonyt]

I agree Tom.

I love playing them myself (6th hole on The Cups course at The Dunes near Melbourne is cool), and could happily and frequently play others, but it is another thing to want them from a perspective of being the designer.

The sand iron pitch or nearly full lob wedge doesn't give the archie much potential for variety in their shot values. It would be hard to design three or four such holes in one's career that would all make a top golfer rub their chin and have to discuss the shot with their caddy.

Wheras once you get over 105 yards but stay below 120, you get more strategic options for designing green complexes and varying demands on the good player, whilst still allowing the ordinary 20 handicapper a 9 iron or pitching wedge lofted shot.

[Dan Kelly]

Frankly, though, if anyone does this today it will just be for the "newsworthy gimmick" factor, just like the par-6 hole and the 8,000-yard golf course.

I'm not saying that you couldn't make a really interesting hole of less than 100 yards -- I'm sure it could be done well.  I just don't believe someone will do it on the merits, as opposed to doing it for the publicity value of "breaking the rules."

Have any of the architects on this site ever seriously considered building a hole of less than 100 yards?  Would you??

Tom --

I don't understand this thinking.

Why NOT build a hole of less than 100 yards -- on the merits? You yourself say: "I'm sure it could be done well." And I'm sure you're right! (I saw a hole the other day that Jeff Brauer has just finished at Fortune Bay in northern Minnesota that would work perfectly at 80 or 90 yards. It's over water. Jeff can correct me if I misremember, but the water continues on the right side, with a bunker front left -- just left of a VERY NARROW [30 feet wide?] tongue at the front of the green. [There may be a short-right bunker, too. I can't recall.] The green slopes pretty dramatically up from front to back. The "safe" shot, to the wide back portion of the green, will leave a nasty downhill putt; the aggressive shot, to a front pin, will bring all sorts of horrible numbers into play. It's a pretty short hole, as it is, but I think it would be every bit as good a test of golf if it were 85 yards long.)

It sounds as though you're saying: "No self-respecting architect will ever build a really, really different hole or a really, really different course -- lest he be accused of doing it for the purpose of 'breaking the rules.' "

Isn't that a recipe for unnecessary conservatism?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Doak:

I'm confident you and your team could build something really cool and have a blast doing so. In fact, you would build something so good that it would shine on merit......the hell with any publicity campaign!

[CHrisB]

Tim,
The interesting thing about a 75-80 yard hole is that it would be less than a full shot, and therefore shots coming in would have less spin than a full shot. I would think a fallaway green, a domed green, or a shallow target where controlling the spin is imperative would be very interesting. An uphill shot from this distance could be interesting as well, because then the shots are flattened out with less spin than a full shot. On such a short hole, the hazards could be severe.

But to best answer your question, try to think of some par 5's or even par 4's where laying up or pitching out to 75-80 yards leaves a very tricky shot (assuming a relatively flat lie) compared to laying back, and then recreate that on a par 3. For example, imagine being 75-80 yards short-right of #14 at TOC!

Or, what the heck, make an undulating tee!

[Tim_Weiman]

ChrisB:

The issue of green contour is why I think architects would have such fun building a "little devil". The fallaway, the domed green and/or a shallow target were the kind of things I had in mind.

Also, I like the potential psychology of such a hole. The amateur would likely just have fun, but the tournament player might get frustrated not scoring on an apparent "birdie hole".

[SC_Jim]

The number 9 hole at Caledonia in the Myrtle Beach area is around 97 yards.  A huge bunker seperates the tee from a shallow green.  Its a tough little hole where your view of the pin is obscured by the high sided bunker.  

[David Wigler]

Tim,

The 7th hole at the 9-hole Evergreen Hills course where my High School golf team (My school's, I did not play on it) practiced is a 75 yard par 3 with a blind landing area.  It has a wild green but on a whole, the hole is pretty goofey.

[Forrest Richardson]

I've designed a par-2, which is actually a large green shared by the previous hole. The object is to putt from markers to a hole: regulation strokes being "2". This hole was approved in Hawaii, but never built. I've written about it.

Recently we are remodeling a terrible hole that has caused several problems for the owner of the course. Our solution appears to be a hole which will play from 40-100 yards. The green will be 300-feet in depth and will literally extend from the tees to the 100-yard point. A consideration is maiking the hole a dual par (both 3 and 2) which will be in effect depending on the daily configuration of a subsequent par-4 (which can play as a par-4 or 5).

What makes this possible is the GPS system, of which I'm not typically a fan. However, in this case the course will soon not print scorecards and will rely on the on-board system to handle all scoring and matches -- cards are printed out when you return to the proshop. For walkers they will have hand-held GPS units, but it is, in reality, a carts course. (Also not a fano of this, but carts happen.)

Anyway, "yes", I'd both consider it and do it.

(Coyote Lakes in Arizona has a 110-yard par-3 from the tips. It's out design.)

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  Would #7 at Pebble Beach qualify for this type of par 3?

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  Would #7 at Pebble Beach qualify for this type of par 3?

[Brock Peyer]

There is a course in Shallotte, NC, just north of North Myrtle Beach, called Brick Landing, (they should rename it Trick Landing).  The 2nd and 17th holes are both 90 yds or less if my memory is correct.  The 2nd hole has a road behind the green which makes depth perception tough and the 17th is slightly downhill and has the intracoastal waterway behind the green.  I would think that they become quite easy for regulars after many rounds but they can be a challenge for newcomers.  I think that the golf course as a whole is architectural nightmare.  The tourist Myrtle Beach golfers think that it is great but I would need to be paired with Jesus himself for me to play there again.  In such a case I am sure that it would be fun.

[Tim_Weiman]

SBR:

#7 at Pebble Beach is clearly one of the great short par 3s, but you'll note my original post suggested we eliminate holes more than 100 yards for this discussion.

I'm asking whether somethig much shorter (75-80 yards) could be made into a world class hole and tend to believe it could be done with clever green shaping and contour.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Forrest, That sounds like fun.

There's a miserable course in Red Wing, MN that has a really fun 90 yard par 3. Everybody complains about it, because it's not a "real" golf hole, but I love it.

The green is lower than the tees and sits on a narrow pennisula on the edge of a bluff. Most people hit wedge and end up at the bottom of the bluff. They freak out when I hit 7-iron and bump it onto the green.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff:

Can you share why people think the hole isn't "real golf"?

By chance do they get embarrassed that the hole plays tougher than one would think?

[Tom_Doak]

If I was ever going to do it, I would make putting the ball from the tee a legitimate option.

But, I don't think I'm ever going to do it.  I'm pretty sure I've never had a client yet who would want such a thing.  And if it's such a great idea, why don't any of the top 500 courses in the world have such a hole?  And why are most of the courses which do described above as "miserable" or "an architectural nightmare."

The closest thing I've done is the 8th hole at Riverdale Dunes for Pete Dye.  We put that short tee on the left in there for ladies originally, but Alice Dye told us the water carry was still too much for them, so we built another ladies' tee on the right.  I asked Pete if I should remove the front-left tee, which is about 75 yards, and he said to leave it -- that it might be a nasty set-up for good players someday.  I think they used it for one round of the Colorado Public Links tournament in the late 80's.

[Dan Kelly]

If it's such a great idea, why don't any of the top 500 courses in the world have such a hole?

Here's my guess: Because golf-course architecture has been, and continues to be (as I put it above), "unnecessarily conservative." Everyone in the game -- owners and architects alike -- is too darned cautious!

Riddle me this, gentlemen (and MargaretC): What's harder, in golf -- more of a test of nerves and skill -- than a half-shot, which the best golfers will go WAY out of their way to avoid? Why not FORCE them to make a good half-shot from the tee?

Your question, Tom, reminded me of a song:

They All Laughed

From "Shall We Dance"
Music by George Gershwin; Lyrics by Ira Gershwin
Performed by Ginger Rogers

[Verse]
The odds were a hundred to one against me
The world thought the heights were too high to climb
But people from Missouri never incensed me
Oh, I wasn't a bit concerned
For from history I had learned
How many, many times the world had turned

[Chorus]
They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly

They told Marconi
Wireless was a phony
It's the same old cry
They laughed at me wanting you
Said I was reaching for the moon
But oh, you came through
Now they'll have to change their tune

They all said we never could be happy
They laughed at us and how!
But ho, ho, ho!
Who's got the last laugh now?

They all laughed at Rockefeller Center
Now they're fighting to get in
They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin
They all laughed at Fulton and his steamboat
Hershey and his chocolate bar

Ford and his Lizzie
Kept the laughers busy
That's how people are
They laughed at me wanting you
Said it would be, "Hello, Goodbye."
But oh, you came through
Now they're eating humble pie

They all said we'd never get together
Darling, let's take a bow
For ho, ho, ho!
Who's got the last laugh?
Hee, hee, hee!
Let's at the past, laugh
Ha, ha, ha!
Who's got the last laugh now?


 

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D.,

I don't know you personally, but I feel I do in part from your writings. Your comment, "And if it's such a great idea, why don't any of the top 500 courses in the world have such a hole?" is a surprise — even a shock.

The top 500 courses in the world are but a thin snippet from golf's past, present and future. These 500 are mostly "the present", as they account for what we know to be decent and accepted in our present day.

Forward thinking requires dipping to the past, but also defining the future through innovation, trial and error. I believe that innovation, trial and error are many times more important in testing this idea. Obviously we have few examples (left) of holes shorter than 100 yards that would be considered great today...but the chances are excellent that they existed at one time.

(Also, I have not read in this thread that a majority of the wee little holes discussed are awful or from awful venues...?)

[Forrest Richardson]

Tim,

At Coyote Lakes the No. 12 hole I mentioned plays 90-110 yards from the back tee on any given day. I think you hit the nail on the head (ball on the logo, whatever) — it is the damned easyness of the length anticipated by the golfer which drives men and women to great mishaps and error. I have seen this firsthand at No. 12, the steady wedge or sand iron played too cautiously and therefore chunked or thinned or even shanked! My God, is there no fairness? How can a little #)*@ hole of this insiginficant length snap at the golfer so effortlessly and with such surprise?

Golf is not fair, after all. It is confirmed.

[George Pazin]

Forrest -

I don't know Tom personally, either, but my take on his comment is that there is much to learn from other courses - what works & what doesn't - not that he is trying to apply any sort of formula for top 500 status.

My own opinion is that it's too big a risk for the course owner to consider, in general. A hole like the thread proposes would be instantly controversial & would like prevent a large segment of raters from rating the course seriously. This would likely impact rating & hence potentially the profitability of a course. Too big a risk for too little reward.

[Scott_Burroughs]

SC_Jim,

#9 at Caledonia is 118 from the tips.  110, 92, and 80 from the other tees.  But it's still less than a full gap wedge for me from the back.