Balance

[Don_Mahaffey]

I've been reading and hearing the word "balance" quite a bit lately.

As in, should yardages between nines be balanced. Why?

Contours should be balanced (exactly how do you do that?)

I hear shot requirements should be balanced. How so, equal number of holes that favor working the ball from left or right? Seriously, who is good enough to do that and don't most really good players have a preferred shot shape that they stick with unless they have no choice but to work the ball the other way? Design something like that and you really hurt the normal guy who can't move the ball upon command.

Where does all this balance talk come from? And is it really that important if a course has equal yardages or a like amount of holes that favor one shot shape over another?

I'm not so sure that using balance as some sort of criteria isn't really about finding another way to score a golf course. But is it a legit criteria for judging a course?

[Mark Bourgeois]

No. Like so many rules based approaches to viewing / appreciatimg architecture, it's bogus. Some of my favorite courses, holes, and greens demonstrate asymmetry and I love them for it, not despite it.

[Jeb Bearer]

I don't think it's necessarily important for yardages to be balanced, but it is important, IMO, to maintain a flow throughout the round. Give and take is something that gets mentioned a lot, and I think it's very important. For example, I played Carnoustie last summer, and under the conditions of the day the front nine played just fine, while the back played like a long, long slog. 4.5 par after 4.5 par, where the holes individually are all very good, nevertheless gets old. However, I do believe it is possible to have unbalanced yardages as long as there is an attackable hole slipped in there every now and then.

As for balanced shot requirements, the "really good players" that you mention do have a preferred shot shape, which is why 18 approach shots that call for a left-to-right shot will give the draw player little chance in a match against a fade player. Better to vary the shot requirements over the course of the round, at least for the sake of variety IMHO. Asking a player to play a shot that he doesn't usually go to is a great way to get him outside his comfort zone.

All that being said, of course there are no hard and fast rules in GCA and the land should have the final say.

[Peter Pallotta]

No. Like so many rules based approaches to viewing / appreciatimg architecture, it's bogus. Some of my favorite courses, holes, and greens demonstrate asymmetry and I love them for it, not despite it.

No doubt, but your experience of the asymmetrical depends on your (long-ago internalized) appreciation of the balanced -- much like the much vaunted half-par holes adored by the anti card-and-pencil set rely wholly on an accepted/internalized conception of par and all that the concept implies.

More to Don's point: balance is manifested as well in beauty and/or proportion -- the large greens at Old Macdonald or The Old Course being in correct scale to the open grandness and the vast horizons of the sea.  

Peter  

[Jeff Taylor]

I seldom think of balance when taking a pleasurable walk.
I seldom think of balance (outside of the athletic movement) when responding to the land that asks for a certain shot to be played.
I hope the artist has thought so much so that I can just play.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Well, Peter, balance is not the same as proportion. Anyway, there is no beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.

[Don_Mahaffey]

More to Don's point: balance is manifested as well in beauty and/or proportion -- the large greens at Old Macdonald or The Old Course being in correct scale to the open grandness and the vast horizons of the sea.  

Peter  

Peter maybe that's it, that there is balance in design but it's not so readily obvious as to be explained as the same amount of holes that turn right or left, and go up or down.

[John Kirk]

Don,

I like to evaluate golf courses on how they offer a comprehensive test of golf skills.  Curve the ball left and right.  Play from the basic types of uneven lies.  Judge uphill and downhill distances.  Execute the occasional blind shot.  There are many more types of shots that a good golfer should be able to execute.  I'm not looking for balance so much as I'm looking for variety and a comprehensive test, which can't be achieved if the course is too flat, too wet, or if all of the par 4s and 5s favor a draw or fade.

My home course, Pumpkin Ridge (Witch Hollow), favors a draw on too many long holes.  But this can be overstated, because anybody who can hit a powerful 5-10 yard fade reliably should be able to excel just about anywhere, even Augusta National.

[Frank Pont]

Don,

one of my favourite quotes of Tom Simpson is:


"Balance nothing, if you can avoid it. This may sound unkind, but it is generally effectual"


As usual Simpson isn't totally clear what he is about, but I think its safe to assume he did not like balance, symmetry etc..

[Sean_A]

Balance isn't terribly important for yardage or par between 9s, but I think overall its important in terms of doglegs, shaping and bunkering.  I would most definitely tick a course down if it had 6 leggers left and one right just as I would a course that is shaped to repel or receive the vast majority of shots.  In fact, Pinehurst's domed greens get the whack for me because there are so many designed to repel.  Only I wouldn't call it balance, I would call it variety and variety is king in golf design.

Ciao

[Frank Pont]

I would say Infinite Variety is king in golf design 

[cary lichtenstein]

I could only hit a draw, so holes that were overgrown with trees hanging over the right side of the fairway the first 50 yards off the tee gave me fits. I would have to resort to hitting a 3 wood off the tee which I could control better than the driver.

The 11th hole at Augusta gave me fits.

[Tom_Doak]

Balance is one of those things that amateur critics use to criticize a course, when they don't like it but can't really find anything to criticize.

Tom Fazio used to make a big show of putting a scorecard on all his plans which detailed how balanced the routing was.  Balanced, and insipid.

[Jeff_Brauer]

A few here are talking artistic balance, vs. challenge balance.

I wrote about challenge balance years ago.  It started with the phrase "All things being equal."  And, all things being equal, meaning if there are 18 good holes on either version of a potential course, I prefer one with a balance of challenges like dl left and right (if possible, in different facing winds, pars, etc.) over a course without it.  But, the key is to have the best 18 holes AND a balance of challenges spread throughout the course.  

I mean, if all 18 holes were equal as individual holes, would you prefer back to back par 3 holes, or a mix?  Prefer a sequence of long, short, medium in 3 par 4's in a row over long, long, long?  (Or, short, short, short?)

Balance is tied to variety and rythm, and I believe these are important to a golf course.

Sincet TD mentioned him,  I recall a discussion where the knowledgeable Tour Pro consultant ranted about Fazio's insistence on placing a fw bunker left, because the previous hole had one right, even though they missed a perfect opportunity for one to the right on a specific hole in question.  So, in that case, I think I would have accepted two holes with fw bunkers right (I got the impression they were both merely flanking bunkers, not one carry, the other flanking or pinching).

I have all those charts where I can count those balance factors, but find that I gloss through them once.  I might catch a few things that changes my mind on a design, but more often, I go with the gut feel of what makes the best hole, feature wise.  As noted above, perhaps my concept of balance is more stringent in routing, where I try to mix up holes and yardages.

And, there are some practical reasons for it.  I have heard some TPC courses are balanced with similar holes at 1-3 and 10-12 since competitors start on both nines.  After that, it doesn't have to be a perfect match.

[Mark Saltzman]

I've been reading and hearing the word "balance" quite a bit lately.

As in, should yardages between nines be balanced. Why?

Contours should be balanced (exactly how do you do that?)

I hear shot requirements should be balanced. How so, equal number of holes that favor working the ball from left or right? Seriously, who is good enough to do that and don't most really good players have a preferred shot shape that they stick with unless they have no choice but to work the ball the other way? Design something like that and you really hurt the normal guy who can't move the ball upon command.

Where does all this balance talk come from? And is it really that important if a course has equal yardages or a like amount of holes that favor one shot shape over another?

I'm not so sure that using balance as some sort of criteria isn't really about finding another way to score a golf course. But is it a legit criteria for judging a course?

Don, I do think balance is important.  I'm not sure how you would define it, but it is important.

Why don't we just change the word balance and call it variety, which is more or less how I would describe the above (with the exception of equal yardages, which I'm not sure I understand what is being referred to).

[Matthew Petersen]

And, there are some practical reasons for it.  I have heard some TPC courses are balanced with similar holes at 1-3 and 10-12 since competitors start on both nines.  After that, it doesn't have to be a perfect match.

I have always heard this was the deliberate intention of Pete Dye at TPC Sawgrass. #1 and #10 are essentially mirror images of each other, and then followed by a par 5.

[Tom_Doak]

And, there are some practical reasons for it.  I have heard some TPC courses are balanced with similar holes at 1-3 and 10-12 since competitors start on both nines.  After that, it doesn't have to be a perfect match.

I have always heard this was the deliberate intention of Pete Dye at TPC Sawgrass. #1 and #10 are essentially mirror images of each other, and then followed by a par 5.

I am not sure that was Mr. Dye's intention.  It might have been input from Commissioner Beman or others at the Tour.  I don't remember Pete talking about it as an important concept on other projects, and when we did the plan for the Stadium course at PGA West, I don't remember it being mentioned as a factor, either.

Mr. Dye did NOT like to have a par-3 too early in the round ... rarely before the 3rd hole, although the 2nd at Long Cove is a par-3.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yeah, but we do know Pete has expressed interest in finishing with a 3-5 and 4.

Also, he has always tended to balance the left to right with right to left shots, perhaps obsessively.  At least, if Faz wrote about the alternate left/right, he would be crucified.......with Pete, not so much.

[Brian Chapin]

Balance serves to make people comfortable... I see no reason that a designer should feel compelled to make the golfer feel comfortable.