So, when is a biarritz a biarritz?

[Tommy Williamsen]

This particular template green has always baffled me, that's why I was interested in the thread, "Did it ever work?"  How deep does the "valley" have to be before it is deemed to be a biarritz?  Watching this week in Boston, I noticed the 7th green.  There is a little valley in the middle.  I suspect it is not a biarritz.  How deep would it need to be to be a biarritz?

[Mac Plumart]

So, when is a biarritz a biarritz?

When it is a biarritz, of course.

 

[Bill Brightly]

My opinion is that a biarritz green is one that has distinct front and back sections with a swale in between. A biarritz green might be found on a par three, four, or five. I don't think the depth of the swale matters (in terms of calling it a biarritz.)

A Biarritz hole is a very long par three with hazards guarding either side of the approach, and a swale before the putting surface.

[Scott Warren]

If Verne Troyer or Peter Dinklage stand in the swale and you can't see them while lying down looking back from the front tier, it's a Biarritz.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I think substantive swale depth is a factor in terms of a "true" Biarritz.

Hybrid, pseudo or faux Biarritz's would seem to fall into the shallow swale category

[ChipOat]

I agree with Patrick (not unusual) re: depth of swale.

There seem to be two flavors of Biarritz par 3's - both built by Macdonald and/or Raynor about the same time.

The "classic" Biarritz did not require a long carry to the front of the putting surface in those pre-watering system, small ball days as there was no hazard between tee box and green.  Hence, 50+ yards of roll before the green was the norm.  Examples include Piping Rock and The Links Golf Club (NLE).  I'm sure there are others, but I have not played them.  At Piping, the ground is no longer firm enough, and the ball is too big, to play that shot anymore - which has probably been the case since after WWII.

The other type of Biarritz DID (and still does) require significant carry in order to safely reach the front section of the green.  Examples include The Creek, Fishers Island and, especially, Yale.

In fact, while Yale is the prototype Biarritz green, the hole was clearly designed for the aerial game even back then as the carry to the front of the green is 160+ yards from an elevated tee box.  Other than for the most expert of shot makers (then and now), I don't see how playing the shot to the rear section of the green by running it through the swale with a low punch was, or is, the percentage play.

While Yale's Biarritz is usually considered the course's signature hole, I submit that the average golfer has always tried to carry the ball to the back section of that green via US Air.

Perhaps Pat Mucci has the skills to hit the low, 165 yard running punch shot.  I know I don't and I don't know many club golfers that do.  Also, is the green even kept firm and fast enough for that shot to work?

As an aside, Tillinghast made the par 4 13th green at Somerset Hills a legitimate Biarritz green, I think.  The green isn't quite long enough, but the swale that runs the full width of the green is certainly deep enough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

The dimensions, configuration and playability of AWT's 13th green differs dramatically from your typical CBM-SR-CB Biarritz.

I've got to run, but will discuss this further upon my return.

[Tom_Doak]

When it is in Biarritz, France.

I was in Biarritz, France the past two days.  But the Biarritz hole is long gone, no sign of it whatsoever.  But there was some good golf left.  I'll make a separate thread out of that later.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

Would I be right in imagining that most if not all of the classic templates The Alps, Sahara, Redan, Biarritz and so on now no longer exist in anything like their original, classic form. Have they all been neutered by a mixture of the modern golf ball, club and maintenance practices and the golfers expectations of "fair" play?

Cheers Colin

[Tom_Doak]

Gentlemen,

Would I be right in imagining that most if not all of the classic templates The Alps, Sahara, Redan, Biarritz and so on now no longer exist in anything like their original, classic form. Have they all been neutered by a mixture of the modern golf ball, club and maintenance practices and the golfers expectations of "fair" play?

Cheers Colin

Colin:

That's a good question, but your answer is not entirely accurate. 

The Road hole and the Eden are still much as they have always been. 

The Redan has not changed, either, though the shot with today's equipment is considerably less demanding than it must have been in 1900 or even 1925.  One could put the Alps in this same class.

But it's interesting to note that the Biarritz and the Sahara are both gone without a trace.  In Biarritz, clearly the decision had more to do with real estate values in the south of France than anything else, but the Sahara was deliberately replaced in the 1970's as being too much of an anachronism.  If it was one of the great holes of its day, why did it not last? 

Or is it the seminal example of a club letting the powers that be make ruinous modifications to their course in order to secure a championship?

[Tommy Williamsen]

There is a course on the Eastern Shore of MD, Hunter's Oak (closed at the moment), that has what could definitely be called a Biarritz.  It is 200 yard par three.  Every time I play it someone will say, "It is tricked up or goofy" or something akin to that.  The head pro told me that he gets more complaints about that green than any other.  I understand why some "template holes" that we hold dear go away.  They do not appeal to most--Redan included.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

One of the problems with golf and golfers is that those golfers who like or are satisfied with a hole, don't voice negative opinions about the hole.

Those who played it improperly, and/or those who generated high scores always blame the hole/feature, they never blame themselves and their bad judgement and/or poor play.

Thus, the most intersting and more challenging holes, mentally and physically, tend to take the brunt of the disgruntled golfer's criticism.

Unfortunately, sometimes the moronic powers that be listen to them.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Pat, when I was a high school student my Dad gave me a book to read, it was something by Kierkegaard.  Odd choice, but not if you lived in my Dad's house.  He asked what I thought Kierkegaard was saying.  I said, "I didn't like him."  He said, "I don't care if you like him or not. What did he say?"
I told him, "I'm not sure."  "Read it again.  After you understand it then we can determine whether or not you agree with him."

I think some holes and some courses are like that.  Before people understand what the architect was trying to do, they criticize it.  I find that to be true at Ballyhack, for instance.  Guys will say, "I think the fourth hole is awful."  I will ask the same question my Dad did, "Do you understand what Lester was trying to do on this hole?  When you have some idea then comment on it."

By the way, I am still not certain I know what Kierkegaard was trying to say.

[Mac Plumart]

Tommy,

One of the problems with golf and golfers is that those golfers who like or are satisfied with a hole, don't voice negative opinions about the hole.

Those who played it improperly, and/or those who generated high scores always blame the hole/feature, they never blame themselves and their bad judgement and/or poor play.

Thus, the most intersting and more challenging holes, mentally and physically, tend to take the brunt of the disgruntled golfer's criticism.

Unfortunately, sometimes the moronic powers that be listen to them.

True that!  In fact, this type of thing makes me sad...truly sad.

Tommy...great post.  I couldn't agree more.  Holes that require people to think or maybe think in unique ways get panned quickly.  However, they need to step back and say "Do I understand what the architect was trying to do on this hole?  When I have some idea then I can comment on it (or adequately judge it)."

Sad stuff.

[Bill Brightly]

It is funny: I often find myself defending Biarritz holes, even though it is one of my least favorite templates. My criticisms come after much study and countless plays. I have come to the conclusion that today's equipment has made the hole largely obsolete for the best players, and for those playing it the "correct way" there is too much penalty for missing the approach and leaving it in the first set of hazards. Missing in the front hazrad can leave a 30-40 yard sand shot, and this is often being attempted by the higher handicappers, not the single digit players.

However, I find that most critics of the hole offer NONE of those agruments. Rather, they look at the hole and say: "It looks dumb, I hate it." Throw in the fact that it is hard to par and nearly impossible to birdie, and the "sticks" are convinced it is a bad golf hole.

This reminds me of a child that is ostricized because of their appearance, shunned because they are too heavy, not pretty enough, or have some other characteristic that makes them look different. They may have incredibly special talents that no one takes the time to notice. In a school setting, we would all agree that this is tragic and it makes us angry. It is equally wrong in judging golf holes.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

Sorry to possibly beat a dead horse but this thread has piqued my interest....possibly because my Granny used to swan around there in bygone days!
The point is that I had not internalised the fact that the early portion of this template could be so terribly penal.As described below the originals had a 50 foot deep chasm as your first impediment. The challenge for the sclaffer and foozler was nigh well insurmountable!
Bill Brightly's reply #14 made me go to Google where I found what I think is a very good description of the original Biarritz, its history and evolution.  I cannot actually work out who to reference (but thank them in absentia!) and have included the link at the end.
Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Cheers Colin

"The original Biarritz was the famous chasm hole at the Biarritz Golf Club in France. The hole was known for its incredible carry over a stunning 50 foot deep and 100 foot wide cut in the cliffs to a peninsula below. The hole was designed by Willie Dunn and featured a tee eighty feet above the ocean playing 220 yards away to a green sitting 50 feet above the ocean hard up against the cliffs. The lighthouse in the background and sweeping ocean view made this one of the most famous holes in its day.

This was also one of the holes that influenced the thinking of Charles Blair MacDonald when he went on his trip of Europe to find and document the best holes in golf in preparation for his work at The National Golf Links of America (NLGA).

At NLGA his original plan was to make the 15th hole a “Biarritz” of around 225 yards, but that got changed as the design for the NLGA evolved. He did not use the Biarritz concept at NLGA, although he went on to use the idea (or at least Raynor did on his behalf) at a number of the courses he and Raynor designed. These include; Yale, Piping Rock, Chicago and the Creek Club. There are thought to be 30 Biarritz’s in existence today.

So what is the Biarritz concept? The original hole featured a 100 yard carry over a chasm, but that is not what caught MacDonald’s eye. What caught his interest were two concepts. First, the fairway and green on the other side were flanked by two strip bunkers making accuracy paramount from the tee. This did allow players to be short as long as they were straight. Second, the green was cited on a natural plateau a few feet above the fairway that keeping all but the best shots off the green. If you can imagine this was a daunting shot from 225 yards away, so much so that the hole was shortened a series of times before its final disappearance (to become housing).

MacDonald took the concept of the natural plateau, the strip bunkers and the role of the slope in the difficulty of the hole. He brought all three together and then modified the idea into what he thought was a superior hole. MacDonald not only had the plateau “green”, he used the defense idea of the front slope in a different but equally effective way by creating a broad swale. The swale still needed to be in carried or “run through” to get to the green (I have never seen any reference to the original having the swale). Then where the Biarritz found its current form, MacDonald made the front a “plateau” like the back. The hole at Yale with its higher back plateau has more roots to the original than others, but either way they all are equally as interesting to play.

Where evolution took this one step further was the front seems to be intended to be fairway, but at some clubs (Chicago and Yale originally) the front was cut to green height creating a most fascinating version of the double plateau green. It is not known whether this was the idea of Raynor, MacDonald, Banks or a green chairman but never the less it made MacDonald’s creation even more fun to play. The result was many clubs now have greens with high plateau fronts, a massive deep swale running across the centre, and a high back plateau. That green is now commonly referred to as the Biarritz green. When MacDonald built his first one at Piping Rock it was quickly referred to as MacDonald’s folly (the hole at Piping rock had the approach and swale as fairway and the green as the back plateau). Now each and everyone of them is cherished and protected by the club."

http://www.golfdiscussions.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=31185.0;wap2