Into the wind: build 'em long, or build 'em short?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I didn't say a thing about the sun, you did. But now that you brought it up and stated that you don't think consideration for the wind is any more formulaic than for the sun I would definitely disagree with that.

I'm quite certain that consideration in routing to try not to route directly into a low sun (east morning/west evening) is a far different consideration in architecture an far more of a "fomula" in architecture than the choice to route into a prevailing wind. Many architects have stated that the use of wind in architecture (in any direction) is one of golf's greatest assets but I don't believe I've ever heard an architect state routing into a low sun is an asset--very much a drawback actually.

To me designing a hole that might have a par such as 4 into a wind, even a seasonal prevailing wind such as Pacific Dunes's #4 or HIdden Creek's #16 so that reaching the hole in regulation becomes extremely difficult I don't see as a bad thing at all and hence I don't believe in using that "formula" that a par hole must be reached reasonably in regulation. The reasons, particularly in some situations such as the example I just gave of Pac Dunes #3 & #4 are extremely interesting and actually compensate each other in a fascinating way. And the fact that both holes can sort of skew par (regarding reaching either in regulation) is much of the fascination and interest.

My distinct recollection is #3 runs up the coast and #4 runs down the coast--that to me is about a 180 degree change in direction. My understanding too is the prevailing winter wind runs one way and the prevailing summer wind runs the other way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

# 3 runs to the coast, primarily to the west, while # 4 runs south along the coast.

Due to its consistency in rising and setting, the sun is a fixed asset or liability.  Wind patterns aren't as consistent as the pattern of the sun, but, where there are predictable prevailing winds I would think that they too would be both an asset and a liability in the routing and design of the holes, and that architects would consider and factor for them in their work.

I think many on this site are too hung up on the concept of "formulaic" when applied to features on a golf course.

We discussed at length fairway bunker depth as a function of shot distance to the green, and to a lessor degree greens that slope back to front.  Rare are the greens that slope front to back, but you never hear of greens that slope back to front, to better receive approach shots, as formulaic.

It's interesting to note that you rarely, if ever, see greens such as the 1st, 3rd, and 6th at NGLA on long holes, just like you don't see greens like #7 and # 9 at FH on long holes.

Are NGLA and FH formulaic ?

I think it may have more to do with shot values, risk/reward and common sense, but if you and others deem common sense as formulaic, then I can only say that common sense isn't so common  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

About #3 & #4 at Pacific Dunes. During the one time I was there the wind was pretty strong. A good example would probably be a guy like Josh Taylor (hits it really long) who hit a drive and an 8 iron to #3 (par 5) and a drive and a 1 iron on #4 (par 4) and didn't reach it.

Maybe you find something like that an indication of poor or faulty design regarding the wind or prevailing wind but I don't. When the seasonal prevailing wind reverses those two holes play entirely different obviously.

So are you suggesting that Doak should have made #3 longer (the par 5) and #4 (the par 4) shorter because during the season that #4 is into the prevailing wind it's hard to reach in regulation?

That's the question of this thread; "Re: Into the wind: build 'em long, or build 'em short?"

I say build them either way for interest and variety and don't get completely caught up in formulaics such as the absolute necessity that players (even strong ones) should be able to hit the par 4 in regulation when into a strong prevailing wind. And I'll say again, that this hole--#4--is made even more interesting by the fact that its preceded by a par 5 in the opposite direction that can be quite easily hit in two shots (one under regulation) in this kind of prevailing wind--while turning the other way #4 is hard to hit in regulation.

Again, maybe you think this is faulty architecture but I don't. I think it's extremely imaginative architecture made even more interesting by the fact that it can tend to skew both par and also skew the formulaic idea that all holes must be designed to be hit in regulation!

This thread is about the length of holes and the wind. It's not about the sun and it's not about the size of greens at the end of various length holes.

But since you brought that up I'll search for and produce the quote from a very respected old architect who mentioned that for variety sake sometimes its a good thing to design a small green at the end of a long par 4 and sometimes it's interesting to go in the opposite direction and design a large green at the end of a very short hole.

A great example of the latter would be NGLA's #17!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Pat:

About #3 & #4 at Pacific Dunes. During the one time I was there the wind was pretty strong. A good example would probably be a guy like Josh Taylor (hits it really long) who hit a drive and an 8 iron to #3 (par 5) and a drive and a 1 iron on #4 (par 4) and didn't reach it.

I don't know that your ONE time at a site qualifies the wind direction that day as the prevailing wind direction.

But, if that was the prevailing wind direction on that site, and it resulted in the play of those holes as you mention, I would have to question their design.

From the tips # 3 is a 499 par 5 and # 4 is a 463 par 4.

You tell me, if the prevailing wind is from the southeast, and with substantial velocity, why would you design a driver and
8-iron par 5 and an unreachable par 4 ?

It makes no sense at all ?

Are you positive that the prevailing wind is from the southeast

When I played the golf course the wind was from the north.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Didn't you realize that Pacific Dunes has TWO prevailing winds? They're seasonal! One runs one way and the other apparently runs in the opposite direction. Can you imagine, then, what the one you're NOT talking about makes those two holes play like--ie #3 much longer and #4 much shorter?

Do you think maybe you ought to rethink what you're saying here or are you just going to come up with some new analogy, some new argument and some new logic that really doesn't apply here to deflect the obvious?

[TEPaul]

Redanman:

Redundancy is generally best when as brief as possible!  

[Forrest Richardson]

Except in whiskey. Best when redundant.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

You have been harping on "formulaics" much more than usual lately......again, I find myself in the Mucci camp regarding recent posts, in that architects are likely, over the course of a career and deep thought, to determine that a certain type of hole works best in a certain type of wind!

For me, it all goes back to Geoff S articulation of the old architectural adage of temptation!  A driveable par 4, or for that matter most strategic carry hazards, are naturally much more tempting in normally downwind condtions, and if possible, that's where I locate them.  If I choose to put these holes in prevailing head winds, they look good on paper, but from experience, I know that only 1% of golfers will experience the intended thrill.....and I think all /most golfers should!  If I put a scorecard length reachable 4 or 5 into the wind, they could have no temptation.  

I feel a narrow bottleneck hole works best downwind, because the wind helps straighten out the tee shot, and a knowing golfer may be more tempted to place a controlled driver between the bunkers, rather than lay up automatically, tempted by the shorter approach.  BTW, I read that in Geo. Thomas book, so he agrees.

That's just two examples of my experience of a preferred hole type in certain wind conditions.  So, yes, wind in any direction can complicate things for the golfer, but I do have preferences of the best way to use it!

And yes, either site conditions, dailey changeable wind, or a decision to do it differently do happen in my designs.  As I indicated on an earlier post on this thread, I like putting the long 4's into the wind sometimes, making the long holes play long and the short holes short for more variety.  I also like them in cross winds and downwind, jsut not as much.

But when push comes to shove, and the land gave me a choice, I have trouble saying "well, I did the short four downwind on the last course, and Morrish has a downwind short four across town, so I'm going to do this one into the wind, just to shut TePaul up about formulaics!"

What really matters is getting the best hole in given conditions.  And while I have my formulas, er, preferences, as to what those may be,  and without other factors influencing, try to get my preferences in as often as possible.

And, what's wrong with that?

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Nothing wrong with that at all, particularly when you say this;

"As I indicated on an earlier post on this thread, I like putting the long 4's into the wind sometimes, making the long holes play long..."

That's basically all I'm talking about and if you're willing to do that I really wouldn't call you one who practices complete "formulaics" in architecture.

What you said there does not sound to me much like what Pat Mucci said here on the same subject;

"I can't imagine an architect designing a hole where the golfer can't get home in regulation due to the prevailing wind."

That's pretty definite to me. He can't imagine it--he'd never do it and doesn't agree with it if an architect did that---period, end of story=formulaics!

I hear you on temptation in architecture Jeff. I agree with GeoffShac bigtime on that but your two examples of using temptation are just two of many. How could you deny that a long par 4 into a prevailing wind with a golfer who apparently is as doctrinaire as Pat is that all par 4s should be reached in regulation would be ultimate temptation to force him into overreaching himself just to get there?!

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I agree with all your statements.  My only difference with Pat is that I would never say never!  

Most golfers would agree with Pat that MOST par 4's should normally be reachable in two shots.  I like some long 4's into the wind on "normal sites" meaning that I can stretch the limit of a players long iron abilities on occaison.

Using Pac Dunes or another normally windy site as an example, I would consider it once,  but would try not to route all long fours into the wind.  If you do it once, its pretty memorable.  Do it too many times, and its just too dang tough!

[peter_p]

Darren doesn't understand that "puzzled" is increasingly SOP as I advance. I had just come off four rounds at Cruden Bay and Royal Dornoch where the locals said the wind was contrary and the courses playing hard because of it. I guess I have gotten to used to playing where formulae influence design, equality in nines, etc. and was a bit disappointed that Machrihanish's first hole across the Atlantic had the most beneficial wind for someone of moderate ability and length.
It is definitely a course where you need to score early and hold on, with great green sites which allow both high and low approaches with some exceptions. The fact that shorter holes were downwind and vice versa is subservient to the geography of the site.    
     Do shorter downwind holes had a greater mental effect on longer hitters if rewards are not achieved? As Darren neared dormie and was playing long upwind holes his swing became pure, as opposed to earlier in the round.
     Regarding Bandon, the prevailing summer wind is from the NW and winter wind from the SW. PD#3 heads NW and PD#4 goes south.  

[TEPaul]

"TePaul,
I agree with all your statements.  My only difference with Pat is that I would never say never!"

Jeff:

That's what I mean. Never say never. It certainly appears to me that Pat is saying 'never' when it comes to routing a long par 4 (like #4 Pac Dunes) into the prevailing wind. To me that's reducing golf design to a "fomulaic" and "standardized" dictate of "must never do". I really do resist that thought in golf design. And you're so right--doing this kind of thing constantly would not be a good thing either--certainly too tough. But every now and then just the variety of it is a good thing, I think, and also the "par skewing" of it is a good thing as a dictate such as all par 4 holes must be reachable in two shots is not a good thing either--in my book. And again, to route two holes one after the other in the manner of Pac Dunes's #3 & #4 is really sort of brilliant, in my opinion. Doing it that way is a great example that any golfer should only think to play golf holes as well as he can given their inherent risk/reward factors regardless of what the par of them is individually.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Just want to reconfirm that you're saying that an architect should design a hole that is basically unreachable in regulation into the prevailing wind that sweeps the golf course.

Could you give me five examples of this configuration in the United States ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I didn't exactly say that a golf architect "should" design a hole into the prevailing wind that "is" unreachable--those are your words you seem to be trying to ascribe to me. What I said is it's OK, in my book, if an architect does design a hole into a prevailing wind that may be unreachable at times. Obviously there're plenty of factors involved here such as unreachable for whom? For me, for you, for Josh Taylor, for Tiger Woods? I'm certain you know what all that means. Why would you ask me for five examples? Wasn't my detailed example of Pacific Dunes's #4 I've already given you of Josh Taylor good enough? Josh Taylor is very long too. No way I could ever have reached that hole that day if he couldn't or didn't. So what? I'd just do my best to sneak up on the thing and make a four the hard way. If you want some more examples, or five more examples just find some holes that are about as long as Pac Dunes's #4, into the prevailing wind in the same kind of setting and wind strength as that one and you have all the examples you need.

Instead of nitpicking over this I think a better thing to do would be to go back and consider some of the things Darren Kilfara wrote about, particularly in his last paragraph in the initial post and discuss them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't object to a hole that may be unreachable at times.

I do object to a hole that is consistently unreachable into the prevailing wind that sweeps the golf course

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Good enough. Saying a hole that's unreachable consistently into the prevailing wind would include a lot of things wouldn't it--eg, wind strength, who you're talking about etc, etc? Did you realize that Pacific Dunes has two prevailing winds that are seasonal in opposite directions? Apparently not. Does that change your view of things about #4?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I was aware that Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes are subjected to two prevailing winds, a winter wind and a summer wind.  I had understood that the winter wind is from the northwest and the summer wind from the south west, but I'm not sure of the exact compass points.

I also was told that the summer wind is stronger, to the degree that hats might be useless accessories.

You should know by now that I don't post everything that I know  

[TEPaul]

"You should know by now that I don't post everything that I know."

Uh-huh! Is that why you posted stuff like this;

"But, if that was the prevailing wind direction on that site, and it resulted in the play of those holes as you mention, I would have to question their design.
From the tips # 3 is a 499 par 5 and # 4 is a 463 par 4.
You tell me, if the prevailing wind is from the southeast, and with substantial velocity, why would you design a driver and
8-iron par 5 and an unreachable par 4 ?
It makes no sense at all ?
Are you positive that the prevailing wind is from the southeast
When I played the golf course the wind was from the north."

So Pat--why did you ask all those questions if you already knew the answers? I think a lot of people on here have been wondering about that for a long time?

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If someone makes a statement or takes a position,
is asking probing questions regarding their statement or position improper ?

You didn't mind it when I grilled rpurd on his allegations regarding Ron Prichard, and determined that his information and contentions were false.

Or, are some on this site to enjoy "most favored nation" status
and be above, beyond and exempt from reproach ?

[Darren_Kilfara]

TEPaul,

I don't object to a hole that may be unreachable at times.

I do object to a hole that is consistently unreachable into the prevailing wind that sweeps the golf course

This reminds me of a debate I once had about the second hole at Shinnecock with one of my longer-hitting friends. He complained that, into the wind, he couldn't reach the green off the tee; I reminded him that a) there are many holes which he can reach in regulation that I can't, and b) there are a few golfers who can reach #2 at Shinnecock into the wind, even if he can't. Point being, "consistently unreachable" is a relative term...

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren Kilfara,

# 2 at Shinnecock plays downwind with the prevailing winds.

[TEPaul]

"You didn't mind it when I grilled rpurd on his allegations regarding Ron Prichard, and determined that his information and contentions were false."

Pat;

You've got a good point there. That joker is a real Lulu. And he never did answer you did he? His response was to not answer anyone's questions and simply attack everyone on this site for asking.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Darren Kilfara,

# 2 at Shinnecock plays downwind with the prevailing winds.

Fair comment - it was into the wind during the four rounds I played there, and the one round my friend played therem but if that's not the prevailing wind then I bow to your expertise. But the point was only meant to be illustrative: people who complain about holes being "consistently unreachable into the prevailing wind" who aren't also named John Daly should bear in mind that other golfers can hit the ball longer than they can...

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren Kilfara,

It's unusual that you would have four rounds with the wind from the north, unless a system was coming in, or you played 36 a day for two days.

In an earlier thead/post reference was made to the shorter holes at Shinnecock playing into the wind, with the longer holes, like # 2, # 3 & 11 playing down wind.  Into the wind
# 2 and # 11 are almost unreachable by the best of players.

Recently, Shinnecock has been lengthened considerably, in order to provide a sterner test for the greatest players in the world.

Many people who play and love Shinnecock, hope that the wind will be UP for the USOPEN and that some direction change will occur over those four days in June, which makes the golf course even more challenging.

Most people forget that golf courses are usually designed for the club's members, and that creating a hole that the members can't reach into the prevailing wind will usually result in alterations to that hole.

[TEPaul]

Darren Kilfara looks at this question logically. If the membership of Shinnecock is having constant trouble reaching certain holes in regulation due to various wind conditions what they should think to do is not alter golf holes but decide to either accept the fact that they're incapable of reaching various greens in regulation with even their best shots or secondarily stepping forward to a tee marker where they have a better chance of reaching those greens in regulation.

Shinnecock is holding the US Open in 2004 and it's certainly a truism that the tour pros hit the ball a lot more solidly and a lot further than do the vast majority of the memberhip of Shinnecock! If various members want to play the same tees the pros will play they should simply accept the consequences of that (wind or no wind) and not think to redesign anything about the holes.