[Lester George]

Bill,

No I wouldn't pitch it to the rear.  In the case of the Old White I believe I used a distance control aspect of Front=25 paces, Middle=23 paces and Back=22 paces in depth.  Its 235 to the back so 22 paces implies running up thru the swale.  Of course the tour pros just hit 6 iron which is the point of this thread.  The rest of us will just benefit from using our imagination and playing the game with a variety of shots in mind I suppose.  Their loss!

[Sean_A]

Sean,

How many back sloping greens do you find on holes requiring a driver or 3-wood for a regulation approach ?

Could you name them ?

No need to go off on a tangent.  Answer my original question.  Why is it bad architecture to have a front to back green on a Biarritz or other long approach?

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

How many back sloping greens do you find on holes requiring a driver or 3-wood for a regulation approach ?

Could you name them ?

No need to go off on a tangent. 

It's only a tangent if you don't understand the architecture and play of the hole.

Answer my original question.  Why is it bad architecture to have a front to back green on a Biarritz or other long approach?
Let's stick to the Biarritz and not go off on a tangent.

Because the nature of the Biarritz, with it's enormous length, is for running shots to be rewarded, not penalized by running off a green that slopes away from the tee.  Surely you can understand that concept, especially given the steep rise immediately fronting the rear plateau, where balls hitting into that slope are prevented from reaching the putting surface on the rear plateau.

In addition, running balls that land on the first plateau, run down and up the swale to the second plateau should be rewarded, not thwarted in their efforts to stay on the rear putting surface.

Now, please answer my question.

Could you also list the Biarritz's you've played.

[Sean_A]

In all the green subterfuge there still isn't an acceptable reason for stating front to back greens on a Biarritz is bad architecture.  Is it your contention that any straight running shot should be rewarded?  At what point is it okay (if at all) to punish a poorly judged running shot?  Is it okay to punish a guy (that would be me so I am guessing the vast majority of golfers) who simply cannot hit the required shot with any consistency? 

Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

I am not trying to thwart those players who are landing on the front section and running the ball through the swale, Rather, I want to thwart the guys who fly it to the back section. Even a slight downhill pitch will have a HUGE effect on how a 3 wood will roll out, and that is the shot I want to go over the green. A properly hit "biarritz shot" my go a few feet longer, but not over the green.

[Scott Warren]

Pat,

Do you agree the holes I listed on the bottom of the previous page work for a three wood or driver approach despite a front-to-back pitch on the green?

[Patrick_Mucci]

In all the green subterfuge there still isn't an acceptable reason for stating front to back greens on a Biarritz is bad architecture. 
Of course there is, you just haven't connected the dots

Is it your contention that any straight running shot should be rewarded? 

No, but this isn't any straight running shot, it's a shot hit by a driver or 3-wood

At what point is it okay (if at all) to punish a poorly judged running shot? 

Certainly not when a driver or 3-wood is the required club off the tee.

Is it okay to punish a guy (that would be me so I am guessing the vast majority of golfers) who simply cannot hit the required shot with any consistency? 

That guy, you or others should not be unduly punished fir executing one of the required tee shots with a driver or 3-wood.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I am not trying to thwart those players who are landing on the front section and running the ball through the swale, Rather, I want to thwart the guys who fly it to the back section.

You can't thwart the longer, generally more skilled golfer without excessively punishing the shorter, generally less skilled player.

Even a slight downhill pitch will have a HUGE effect on how a 3 wood will roll out, and that is the shot I want to go over the green. A properly hit "biarritz shot" my go a few feet longer, but not over the green.

Again, you want to punish a well executed shot by the longer, generally better player, WHY ?
Shouldn't that well executed shot, despite your disapproval, be rewarded ?

In trying to penalize the longer, better player, you're unduly penalizing the shorter, generally lesser player.

Is that good architecture ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The 1st hole at Woking, for starters.

Never played it, so I can't comment

You may have seen the 3rd at Royal Melbourne (West) / 1st hole Composite during last year's Pres Cup.

Ditto

The 10th at Riviera (the 4th as well, for that matter).

I don't recall the 10th sloping away from the golfer approaching from the fairway.
And, it's an L-wedge shot

The 4th is a Redan like hole

How about the 2nd at National Golf Links?

The 2nd green does NOT slope away from the golfer

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

I am not trying to thwart those players who are landing on the front section and running the ball through the swale, Rather, I want to thwart the guys who fly it to the back section.

You can't thwart the longer, generally more skilled golfer without excessively punishing the shorter, generally less skilled player.

Even a slight downhill pitch will have a HUGE effect on how a 3 wood will roll out, and that is the shot I want to go over the green. A properly hit "biarritz shot" my go a few feet longer, but not over the green.

Again, you want to punish a well executed shot by the longer, generally better player, WHY ?
Shouldn't that well executed shot, despite your disapproval, be rewarded ?

In trying to penalize the longer, better player, you're unduly penalizing the shorter, generally lesser player.

Is that good architecture ?

Has anyone ever told you that you can be stubborn? I play a Biarritz hole 2 or 3 times each week Patrick. I think I've seen more shots than you ever will. I watch almost all the single digit handicaps fly the ball to the back section with impunity. If those balls landed on a slight downslope, many would roll over. THAT is good architecture.  

As for those guys actually playing a run up shot, a SLIGHT downslope would NOT punish them, it would add a  few feet to their shot. But it would make a big difference to the fly-it-back-there guys.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Has anyone ever told you that you can be stubborn?

No, I've never been told that before.

I play a Biarritz hole 2 or 3 times each week Patrick.
I think I've seen more shots than you ever will.

No, you'll only see more shots on that particular hole, the 3rd hole at Hackensack, a short Biarritz

I watch almost all the single digit handicaps fly the ball to the back section with impunity.

Why shouldn't they ?
The hole is only about 197 from the white tees, 224 from the blue tees and 230 from the black tees with little in the way of elevation change.

Now, you want to punish a golfer who hits a perfect shot to a small target with adverse consequences should they go left, right or long, and even short.

If those balls landed on a slight downslope, many would roll over. THAT is good architecture.  

No, it's not, if a golfer hits a good shot from the blue/black tee, a shot that lands on the back level, where the hole is cut, why should he be penalized ?

You just want to punish a well struck shot and lower handicaps in general.

Let's take it a step further and forget about the tee shot into the back level of the Biarritz.
Let's talk about the GREAT majority of golfers who will leave their ball short of the back level and have to putt through a swale to an upper back level and then have their ball put on the brakes in order to stop near the hole.  You're unjustly punishing them in your misguided attempt to punish the low handicap.

Now, let's talk about the mid to higher handicap who misses the green and attempts a recovery to the back level.
It will be almost impossible for them to stop the ball on the back level if you grade it to fall away from the tee.

Again, you're punishing the lesser golfer while attempting to force the better golfer to play an non-aerial game.

Your position is insane.

You're blinded or obsessed or both by a desire to punish the low handicap golfer, or force them to play the hole the way that you want them to play it, but, in doing so, you unduly punish every other golfer to a much greater extent.

Surely you see the folly of your concept as it applies to the broad base of your membership ?.

As for those guys actually playing a run up shot, a SLIGHT downslope would NOT punish them, it would add a  few feet to their shot. But it would make a big difference to the fly-it-back-there guys.

I'm afraid that you've got tunnel vision.
You're so determined to punish those that fly the ball to the back level that you're willing to make the hole more difficult to impossible for the mid to high handicapper.  Chipping, pitching or putting through and up the swale to a tier that slopes away from the golfer DOES punish them.  It just doesn't "add a few feet to their shot", it makes their putting and recoveries exponentially more difficult.  Tell me that you understand that.

Ask yourself this question.

What are the physical properties of the back level on the 9th hole at Yale ?

Does the back level of that green slope away from the golfer, or, does it slope toward him, acting as a backstop ?/b]

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

You raise a very good point about the recovery shots. Even a slightly downhill green makes recovery more difficult for all levels of players. I knew if I made you respond enough eventually you would stumble on something that makes sense.

However, this is true for any green with a back to front pitch, because most higher handicaps will miss greens short and struggle with their recovery shots.

Just as I need to see Mountain Ridge again, YOU need to come see Hackensack. It is NOT a short Biarritz, it is longer than most. There is a new black tee which plays 255 and can be stretched to 270. The blues use the old back tee half the time so the hole now plays between 210-245, and the Whites 190.

I've only played Yale once, and the pin was up front, but I recall that the back section is pitched back to front. It seems designed to help stop the running shot.


Look, I give up. I was just throwing out an idea that might restore the original design intent for single digit handicap players. If guys like you who are good players and know a little about architecture are gonna whine like babies, then my idea won't work. Which means the answer to Scott's question is that Biarritz holes don't work, except for guys who hit it so short that they can't fly it to the back.

Today's equipment has rendered it an antiquated design concept, unless you are prepared to make the hole 280 yards long as George Bahto suggests.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You raise a very good point about the recovery shots. Even a slightly downhill green makes recovery more difficult for all levels of players. I knew if I made you respond enough eventually you would stumble on something that makes sense.

Bill, thanks for your help 

However, this is true for any green with a back to front pitch, because most higher handicaps will miss greens short and struggle with their recovery shots.

Yes, but you're again forgetting about the greater general length of the hole and the increased probability that the green will NOT be hit in regulation, and , for the small percentage that do, they'll be faced with a very difficult, very unusual putt down and up the slope of a deep swale to a putting surface that slopes away from them.

You're essentially piling on, creating a far more difficult challenge for golfers whose talents don't measure up to that challenge.

Just as I need to see Mountain Ridge again, YOU need to come see Hackensack. It is NOT a short Biarritz, it is longer than most. There is a new black tee which plays 255 and can be stretched to 270. The blues use the old back tee half the time so the hole now plays between 210-245, and the Whites 190.

Then let's do a home and home

I've only played Yale once, and the pin was up front, but I recall that the back section is pitched back to front. It seems designed to help stop the running shot.

That's correct.

What did Charles Blair Macdonald and I know that you don't ?

Look, I give up.

I was just throwing out an idea that might restore the original design intent for single digit handicap players. If guys like you who are good players and know a little about architecture are gonna whine like babies, then my idea won't work.

But Bill, what you miss is that I'm trying to protect the Mid to High handicap golfer from terribly misguided ideas from people like you who want to punish low handicappers.   

Which means the answer to Scott's question is that Biarritz holes don't work, except for guys who hit it so short that they can't fly it to the back.

But, they do work.

What you don't understand is that each hole doesn't equally challenge every level of golfer.

One of the architect's missions is to forge a balanced challenge over 18 holes, one that overall doesn't favor any particular type of golfer.

One hole may favor a particular golfer, like a golfer who draws the ball, but then, another hole may favor a fader, but overall, the favoritism on the 18 individual holes will balance out and essentially be equal.

You want a particular hole, the Biarritz, to disfavor the small set of golfers who are capable of carrying the ball to the rear plateau, but in your zeal to do so, you're excessively penalizing the weaker golfer, the mid to high handicaps.

It's rare when one hole can be all things to all golfers 

Today's equipment has rendered it an antiquated design concept, unless you are prepared to make the hole 280 yards long as George Bahto suggests.

I agree, But that's been basically true for most holes, including the Redan, Cape and many others.

Tell me, what course plays at the same length today as it did in 1960 ?

[Brett_Morrissy]

Gents,
This thread has nutted out some very interesting comments re this subject of old designs on modern courses.

Scott, are you interested in doing another couple of threads on Pat's subjects in the last post, i.e. Redan and Cape.

[Scott Warren]

Brett, I agree. Would be interesting to perhaps look at other templates in the same way.

Pat,

Your last post (directed at Bill) brings me back to my reason for starting this thread:

You want a particular hole, the Biarritz, to disfavor the small set of golfers who are capable of carrying the ball to the rear plateau, but in your zeal to do so, you're excessively penalizing the weaker golfer, the mid to high handicaps.

It's rare when one hole can be all things to all golfers.

This brings me to perhaps the core reason why I don't believe a Biarritz (as excited as I am whenever I play one) works in the modern game as it was intended.

The best players, as Bill and others have illustrated, fly the ball all the way back.

But your "weaker golfer, the mid to high handicap" is in many, many cases not able to hit the shot required to access a back pin on a Biarritz hole. Even from 220 yards or 200 yards.

There simply are not many mid to high handicappers capable of hitting an accurate enough shot of that length at a trajectory that will see the ball chase through the swale after landing.

The players capable of hitting that shot don't need to and most of those who need to are unable.

[Colin Macqueen]

Brett, Scott,

I have been enthralled with this thread as it really does seem to tease out the character of the template; the Biarritz in this case. For the likes of me who has not played any of these classical holes it is a great help in ubderstanding the architecture in conjunction with the strategy. I would be delighted if this thread idea was extended to other templates. Photographs of these types of holes (in other threads) are of course useful but to my mind do not get me thinking about the pros and cons of them as I really should do. The thrust and parry between Bill and Pat has been really instructional and it is in this type of thread where GCA excels.

For what it is worth I think a slight front to back slope on the back portion is worthwhile as the "sticks" can play the aeriel shot all day every day. Let 'em have a crack at a long running draw and get the joy of creative golf.

Cheers Colin

[Bill Brightly]

There is one thing I know for sure: maintaining the front section as putting surface is absolutely the right way to go. (But the pin should only RARELY be located up front.) Forget the low handicappers and long hitters who can fly it to the back. There are MANY golfers at my club who cannot do that, but landing on a firm putting surface gives them a FAR better chance of reaching the back section compared to a soft plush fairway, especially when the swale is fairway height. This also is true for most women playing the forward tees.


So in a weird way, short hitters are getting the enjoyment of hitting the running shot, watching it disappear, and then hopefully, roll out to the back section. And the sticks just bang away grumbling about a 230-260 yard par 3.

 I have this idea to at least TRY to get good players thinking about attempting a Biarritz shot: I want to have a Biarritz contest after a member guest, during cocktail hour.  Closest to the pin wins but you must land you ball on the front section. 3 swings for $10, Maybe have a white tee, blue tee, and black tee pool based on handicaps.

Our Biarritz tee is a short walk from the clubhouse. Wouldn't it be fum to have all the guys try it while others drank and observed? And MAYBE some will see that a run up is possible and try it the next time they play!

[Sean_A]

In all the green subterfuge there still isn't an acceptable reason for stating front to back greens on a Biarritz is bad architecture. 
Of course there is, you just haven't connected the dots

Is it your contention that any straight running shot should be rewarded? 

No, but this isn't any straight running shot, it's a shot hit by a driver or 3-wood

At what point is it okay (if at all) to punish a poorly judged running shot? 

Certainly not when a driver or 3-wood is the required club off the tee.

Is it okay to punish a guy (that would be me so I am guessing the vast majority of golfers) who simply cannot hit the required shot with any consistency? 

That guy, you or others should not be unduly punished fir executing one of the required tee shots with a driver or 3-wood.

I am not sure how you define unduly punished.  Is going long on a front to back Biarritz green unduly - any more unduly than missing just right or just left and ending up in sandy hell? 

At the moment, I am certainly in Scott's camp. I fail to see how a Biarritz works well across the board.  Of course, it doesn't have to, but then it should at least be a corker for one subset of golfers.  Perhaps the answer is to make these par 3s for flat bellies at 280ish and par 4s for the rest of civilization. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brett, I agree. Would be interesting to perhaps look at other templates in the same way.

Pat,

Your last post (directed at Bill) brings me back to my reason for starting this thread:

You want a particular hole, the Biarritz, to disfavor the small set of golfers who are capable of carrying the ball to the rear plateau, but in your zeal to do so, you're excessively penalizing the weaker golfer, the mid to high handicaps.

It's rare when one hole can be all things to all golfers.

This brings me to perhaps the core reason why I don't believe a Biarritz (as excited as I am whenever I play one) works in the modern game as it was intended.

Sean,

Are you losing your marbles ?

Almost nothing that remains unaltered works in the modern game as it was intended.

The Biarritz, in order to work in the modern game, has to have the back tee extended as both George and I previously indicated.


The best players, as Bill and others have illustrated, fly the ball all the way back.

The best players were hitting wedges into # 4, # 16 and # 18 at Pine Valley, that's why they extended the tee.
The best players were hitting the ball over the centerline bunker feature on # 8 at NGLA, wedges into # 12 and using irons off the tee at # 14, that's why they extended the tees.

Ditto almost every hole at WFW and many, many, many other courses.

The primary problem is, do the Biarritz holes have the land to extend the back tee ?

If so, and the club is so inclined, it's an easy fix.

But your "weaker golfer, the mid to high handicap" is in many, many cases not able to hit the shot required to access a back pin on a Biarritz hole. Even from 220 yards or 200 yards.

I don't agree with that if the golfer is playing from tees commensurate with his game.

There simply are not many mid to high handicappers capable of hitting an accurate enough shot of that length at a trajectory that will see the ball chase through the swale after landing.

It's not supposed to be an easy shot ?

PGA Tour golfers don't hit every green in regulation, so why do you expect mid to high handicappers to be incredibly proficient at hitting a green on a long par 3 ?

The players capable of hitting that shot don't need to and most of those who need to are unable.

I don't agree

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I think most agree that Biarritz's seem to be improved by having the front section maintained as putting surface.

The Creek, Hackensack and Yale do, I'd like to see The Knoll, Piping Rock and others do the same.

[Scott Warren]

Patrick,

I don't agree with that if the golfer is playing from tees commensurate with his game.

The hole is intended to test a player's approach with a long club to that unique style of green.

As much as I hate generalising by handicap, I don't see many players over a 10 or 12 handicap capable of hitting the required shot successfully with any sort of regularity.

Regardless of how far they hit a long iron, hybrid or fairway wood, those players do not hit those clubs with the required accuracy with any regularity.

PGA Tour golfers don't hit every green in regulation, so why do you expect mid to high handicappers to be incredibly proficient at hitting a green on a long par 3 ?

I don't, I simply note that in my mind this is part of what makes Biarritz holes less than ideal in the modern game. They function as intended for a very small percentage of players.

I'll also correct you on Golden Age holes functioning as intended. Many, many do - aided by moving tees back as you note. I never said holes should function as intended without alteration.

But of course if you'd read my post carefully, you'd have seen you were replying to Scott, not Sean.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I don't agree with that if the golfer is playing from tees commensurate with his game.

The hole is intended to test a player's approach with a long club to that unique style of green.

As much as I hate generalising by handicap, I don't see many players over a 10 or 12 handicap capable of hitting the required shot successfully with any sort of regularity.

What low handicappers hit that shot with any sort of regularity ?

Regardless of how far they hit a long iron, hybrid or fairway wood, those players do not hit those clubs with the required accuracy with any regularity.

Neither do low handicappers.

PGA Tour golfers don't hit every green in regulation, so why do you expect mid to high handicappers to be incredibly proficient at hitting a green on a long par 3 ?

I don't, I simply note that in my mind this is part of what makes Biarritz holes less than ideal in the modern game. They function as intended for a very small percentage of players.

That's simply not true.

The modern game has added length to the game played by mid to high handicappers, thus allowing them to play the hole as intended

The modern game hasn't only benefited the low handicap golfer

I'll also correct you on Golden Age holes functioning as intended. Many, many do - aided by moving tees back as you note.

That's sheer nonsense, you can't have it both ways, comparing Golden Age holes that haven't had length added to Golden Age holes that have had length added to them. 

 I never said holes should function as intended without alteration.

Then why are you holding Biarritz's to a different standard ?

But of course if you'd read my post carefully, you'd have seen you were replying to Scott, not Sean.

That's because I was on an iPad and figured it was one of you

[Scott Warren]

Patrick,

Maybe start by directing me to where I said Biarritz holes should function successfully in the modern game from the distances at which they were designed a century ago. It will be a long search because I have never said just a stupid thing.

Likewise, you've misread my comments about the ability to hit an accurate shot with a long club at a trajectory that will see the ball run out sufficiently to traverse a Biarritz swale.

I said that the best players CAN successfully hit that shot with regularity, not that they DO hit that shot regularly.

The modern game has added length to the game played by mid to high handicappers, thus allowing them to play the hole as intended.

A Biarritz hole is not merely about having a club in the bag that travels the required distance, there is also the not insignificant matter of being accurate enough with that club to put your ball on, or in front of, the green.

And that's all before we consider the ability to do all of the above with a ballflight that will see the ball land short of the swale (because we are talking about players who cannot fly it to the back) and run through to the back tier.

[Bill Brightly]

Since our front section is maintained as putting surface, one of the cool things is how short you have to carry the ball in the air IF you hit the shot low. For example, from the Black tee at 250 I only need to carry it 190 to 200. I can theoretically hit it with a 3/4 Driver or stinger 3 wood and I am pretty good at this on the range. The problem I have is hitting this less than full shot STRAIGHT, especially under match conditions.

But the run up allows so many more people to reach the green who might not be able to do so otherwise. From the Blue tees at 230, you only need to carry it 170-180, and only 130-140 from the Whites.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Maybe start by directing me to where I said Biarritz holes should function successfully in the modern game from the distances at which they were designed a century ago. It will be a long search because I have never said just a stupid thing.

Likewise, you've misread my comments about the ability to hit an accurate shot with a long club at a trajectory that will see the ball run out sufficiently to traverse a Biarritz swale.

I said that the best players CAN successfully hit that shot with regularity, not that they DO hit that shot regularly.

If they can hit the shot regularly, as you claim, then, they DO hit it regularly, for if they don't hit it regularly, it means that they can't hit it regularly.

The modern game has added length to the game played by mid to high handicappers, thus allowing them to play the hole as intended.

A Biarritz hole is not merely about having a club in the bag that travels the required distance, there is also the not insignificant matter of being accurate enough with that club to put your ball on, or in front of, the green.

As I stated previously, PGA Tour Pro's don't hit all greens in regulation and they certainly aren't going to increase their stats on a 250+ yard hole, so why are you expecting mid to high handicaps to execute with regularity ?
Mid to high handicaps aren't hitting "shorts", "Edens",  Redans" or any other par 3's with regularity or the required shot, so why single out the Biarritz for non-performance on their part ?

A Biarritz is supposed to be a difficult test.
Why do expect a high rate of success in hitting the green on a long hole ?

And that's all before we consider the ability to do all of the above with a ballflight that will see the ball land short of the swale (because we are talking about players who cannot fly it to the back) and run through to the back tier.

Ball flight is primarily a function of club selection.

Mid to high handicappers are perfectly capable of selecting the right club, the club that will allow them to land short of the swale and run up to the back tier.  The inability to do it consistently is why they are mid to high handicappers.

By the way, low handicappers can't do it regularly, so I don't see what your objection/complaint about the hole is.

It's meant to be a difficult shot.

Have you played # 9 at Yale ?

Is it your opinion that it's not a good hole ?

That the modern game has obsoleted it z?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()