[Tom_Doak]

In the Kinglsey vs. Crystal Downs thread, Mr. Tigerman wondered if I could defend the 17th hole at Crystal Downs as "anything more than an awkward connector hole."  And I admitted that I thought it WAS an awkward connector hole, but that I also think it has a lot going for it.

It is difficult to address the topic of routings with a bunch of guys who have never tried in earnest to route a course, but it's my opinion that "awkward connector holes" are almost always a part of the process, and that the key to having a great course is the ability to make something cool out of the awkward bits.

At Crystal Downs, I would guess that one other hole besides #17 was an "awkward connector" -- and that is #5, which most people find to be one of the best holes on the course (or anywhere else).  I would make an educated guess that was not the first hole MacKenzie found on the front nine, but one of the last ... when it came down to getting from #4 green to #6 tee and he had to use the ridge as part of the course.

I'm not far along yet, but one of the great things about working on our "routing book" is that I think people will be shocked to find which holes came first in the various routings, and which did not make their appearance until near the end.  A few examples from my own work:

At High Pointe, my original awkward connector was #13.  I loved the green site (though I had not yet figured out the design of the green), but the holes I loved were #12 and #14, so the 13th was what had to be there to make them work.  I worried that the landing area was too severely crowned.  And yet, when the course opened, that was the best hole on the course, in part because I had to think much harder about it in order to make it work.  [The other awkward connector was #7 ... another of the best holes.]

At Pacific Dunes, one of the awkward connectors is #6.  I actually found that hole on the topo at the very start of the process, but Mr. Keiser thought it was too short, and dismissed it as an awkward connector.  The next-to-last routing for the course had two holes in the space where #4 is today, and a really awkward connector from #4 green to #6 green area or the hollow to the right of it.  I'm glad we managed to sneak the present #6 back in there, instead.

At Barnbougle, the awkward connectors were #3, #7, #12, and #16.  Well, three out of four ain't bad.

At Ballyneal, the awkward connectors were #2 - 3 and #7 and #14 - 15, and to a lesser degree, in getting #18 to the clubhouse.

In short, the awkward bits are what gives a course character, and what makes the architect think more.  Oftentimes, the difference between a great hole and a poor one on such terrain is missing the tee or green location by 20-30 yards.  And one of the prime benefits of minimalism has been keeping the awkward bits in there and making them work, instead of erasing them with a bulldozer and building something mundane, which was the standard for modern courses for about 30 years.

[Michael Moore]

Tom -

Your ego has slipped its leash as of late. Golly gee willikers, these awkward connecting holes turned out to be world class.

Do the last holes of a routing have to be the worst?

Is there always a notion of "connecting" when routing, or can there be a plan where the flow amongst and between holes does not play favorites?

[JC Jones]

Tom,

Your homerism astounds.  You're failing logic 101.  Just because you cite a few connector holes that work (your own, of course...), we are suppose to assume that all (or the 17th at Crystal Downs), work.  Sorry but your homerism has caused you to slip into fallacy. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

Without the awkward connector hole,  what's the alternative. ?

I don't want to equate the process as painting yourself into a corner but the awkward connector hole would seem to be a necessary architectural evil.

An acceptable compromise that enhances the balance of the product

Macdonald indicated that he found two of his par 3's very early in his planning process at NGLA, leading one to believe that they weren't the result of design by default, yet, there's an hint of shoehorning with all three.

At Merion, do you feel that the old and new 13th were awkward connector holes ?

[Josh Tarble]

Tom, this is an interesting topic, because I'm guessing 99% of us have no idea what holes are connectors and what are not. The architect I'm most familiar with is Pete Dye and you mention the bulldozer largely eliminating this connector hole from modern design. With Dye I think that is true, as I can only think of 2 that I'd call connectors. #16 at Harbour Town and #1 at Crooked Stick.  I am also guessing many of Dyes connectors end up being some of the more aggressively shaped on the course (perhaps Kampen #14?).

I'd also be interested to hear some other "famous connectors" ala CD #7

[Bill Seitz]

Tom, I'll fully admit that you come to this topic from a COMPLETELY different frame of reference than the rest of us, but I will say that I never felt the same way about #5 at Crystal, or any of the holes you mention at Ballyneal the same way I felt about the 17th at Crystal.  The 17th at CD just seemed completely out of character with the rest of the course, and an obvious case of "we need to somehow get from the 16th green to the 18th tee, and this is the best we got".*  

I've heard the same criticism of the 11th at Kingsley (while we're on the topic) and I can't argue with that.  Point being, as an accomplished architect, you know when you're trying to shoehorn a hole in that gets you from one part of the course to another.  An architect has truly done a great job when he accomplishes this without the novice noticing.  Maybe I just got lucky, but I would argue the test of the connector hole is whether a novice can tell that it's a connector hole.  #17 at CD is one of the few holes I've played that stuck out as an obvious connector.  That doesn't make it a bad hole (and I would argue that it isn't necessarily a bad hole in its own right), but I think it's one of the weaker holes on a great course, and quite frankly, I'm not sure what else they could have done to get you from 16 to 18.  Maybe a really good par three if they were willing to go with a par 69, but something tells me that would have been a death knell.

*Partial repost from the KC v. CD thread.  

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Tom,

Have you played Scarsdale Golf Club?

The back nine has two awkward connector holes. Tillinghast built two elevation changing par threes the 11th and 15th which tie together the nine on an especially precipitous and awkward piece of the property. I always found them sporty and entertaining in their elevation changes, both uphill.

While they serve well to unite the routing the reward is the fantastic drive off of a dramatic transition back down from the 18th tee which plummets more than a hundred feet into a straightaway par five back home to the clubhouse.

[Pete_Pittock]

I'm curious about Greywalls.

[Bill Seitz]

I'm curious about Greywalls.

Possible connector holes: 5, 8, and 17.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

This might be the best topic I have ever seen on GolfClubAtlas. Very happy to hear you are working on a routing book.

[Jim Nugent]

It's not awkward, but looking back I think #1 at St. Louis CC is a kind of connector hole.  Not a bad hole, but more a way to get to #2, which is where I always felt the course really started in earnest. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Your homerism astounds.  You're failing logic 101.  Just because you cite a few connector holes that work (your own, of course...), we are suppose to assume that all (or the 17th at Crystal Downs), work.  Sorry but your homerism has caused you to slip into fallacy. 

No, you're not supposed to assume that all of them work to your satisfaction.  What I'm saying is that there are nearly always 1 to 4 holes in the routing that are connectors -- designed because you've got to find a way from one green to another tee -- and how well you solve them is one of the keys to whether the course turns out great, or good, or awful.  If you make a mess of one of those holes, it could ruin everything else and take the course down several notches in most people's estimation.

You and I will just have to disagree about whether the 17th at Crystal Downs does that, or whether it gets you back home in a thrilling way that adds something to the course.  I recognize that it's a controversial hole.  So is the 18th at Yale.  So is the 5th at Crystal Downs.  So are lots of other holes that you guys just don't recognize.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom -

Do the last holes of a routing have to be the worst?

Is there always a notion of "connecting" when routing, or can there be a plan where the flow amongst and between holes does not play favorites?

Michael:

What I'm saying is that necessity is the mother of invention.  Most of these holes, the architect would never choose to build if there were other ways around them.  They sure don't jump out from the topo map and say "build me".  You know they are likely to be controversial.  You get to them backwards, when you realize that to build all the other holes you want, you have to get through this part of the property, too.  

That doesn't mean they are the last hole you find, necessarily.  The 7th at Rock Creek is a connector ... but also one of the first holes I found, after I'd figured out that the best place to cross the creek in the upper part of the couse was #8, but I had to find a non-par-3 through the rugged ground to get to #8 tee.  If I hadn't been able to find it, then the routing would never have gone that far up the hill at all.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

At Pacific Dunes, one of the awkward connectors is #6.  I actually found that hole on the topo at the very start of the process, but Mr. Keiser thought it was too short, and dismissed it as an awkward connector.  The next-to-last routing for the course had two holes in the space where #4 is today, and a really awkward connector from #4 green to #6 green area or the hollow to the right of it.  I'm glad we managed to sneak the present #6 back in there, instead.

Tom, I am going to qualify this question with the fact that I am one of the 99% on this board that has no idea what I am talking about when it comes to routing a golf course...

Regarding #6 at Pacific Dunes, I had read previously and above that it was one of the first holes you found - I didn't realize it was first found on a topo, but I guess that obviously makes sense.  If it was one of the first holes you found and a hole you wanted to keep in the final routing, doesn't that sort of make it not a connector, but rather a hole you are trying to connect to?

As for Pacific Dunes, I would have said the par 5's were the connectors, but not awkward in any sense.

As for Kingsley, the connectors to me have always been #7 and then #10 and #11.  I agree with Jud that probably some of the issues people have with #7 is that fact that it is a bit awkward in landing zone and lay-up areas and how it sits on the land.  As for #11, one of the original routings for the par 3 has the tee's closer to #10 green and the hole plays to the east versus the final routing which has it playing predominantly north to south.

Very cool discussion about a topic I would like to understand better...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, this is an interesting topic, because I'm guessing 99% of us have no idea what holes are connectors and what are not. The architect I'm most familiar with is Pete Dye and you mention the bulldozer largely eliminating this connector hole from modern design. With Dye I think that is true, as I can only think of 2 that I'd call connectors. #16 at Harbour Town and #1 at Crooked Stick.  I am also guessing many of Dyes connectors end up being some of the more aggressively shaped on the course (perhaps Kampen #14?).

I'd also be interested to hear some other "famous connectors" ala CD #7

Josh:

You are right that Pete had fewer "connectors" in his career than some other guys, because a lot of the sites he had to work with are pretty flat, and his success is largely due to being creative and clever in how to overcome that.

Harbour Town was actually routed by George Cobb and some holes were clearly more endowed with cool features than others.  16, as you say, was an awkward one because there were some big trees to work through, but you're also correct, that's where Pete invented the big deep waste bunker to turn a boring hole into something special.

The 13th at The Golf Club is probably another connector of sorts ... having to get over very flat ground with nothing going for it, in the midst of a bunch of holes that do have good natural features.

[JC Jones]

No, you're not supposed to assume that all of them work to your satisfaction.  What I'm saying is that there are nearly always 1 to 4 holes in the routing that are connectors -- designed because you've got to find a way from one green to another tee -- and how well you solve them is one of the keys to whether the course turns out great, or good, or awful.  If you make a mess of one of those holes, it could ruin everything else and take the course down several notches in most people's estimation.

Now this fascinates me.  This is what can make your contributions around here so good.  This paragraph takes me back to reading Anatomy of a Golf Course and if your are working on a book about routing, that'll be interesting as most of us don't understand this aspect of a course design as much as we do green contours, shot strategy and bunkering.

Someone on this thread said that maybe the hallmark of a good connector hole is that the average person wouldn't know it to be a connector hole.  I think that is a relatively good standard.

[Tom_Doak]

Regarding #6 at Pacific Dunes, I have read previously and above that it was one of the first holes you found - I didn't realize it was first found a topo, but I guess that obviously makes sense.  If it was one of the first holes you found and a hole you wanted to keep in the final routing, doesn't that sort of make it not a connector, but rather a hole you are trying to connect to?

As for Pacific Dunes, I would have said the par 5's were the connectors, but not awkward in any sense.

Chris:

I can see how you would say that, but the fact is that the present #6 had been thrown out of the routing [even though I thought it had some really good potential] and it did not come back until the very end, when we had the location for #4 green set and also #7 tee, and needed to get from here to there in two holes.  #5 could be considered the connector, I suppose, to get to the #6 I liked; but #6 was the hole of awkward length that the client was unsure of.

I guess some of the par-5's at Pacific are connectors, too -- the routing was done mostly from the oceanfront back inland, and there were no par-5's right along the ocean, so we had to fit them inland.  We were always going to use #15 green site, but it didn't wind up being a par-5 until we'd figured out #14.  #3 wasn't on the first routing, either -- we didn't find the green site until after the gorse fire, because it didn't show up very clearly on the topo -- but as soon as we saw it, it was in.  #12 and #18 are the real connectors of that group.

The other 100% connector hole at Pacific is #9.

The holes I'd found on the topo map before I got there that made the final cut are #6, #11 and #16.  The fourth one was #10 -- except that on the topo, I'd envisioned it as a short par-4 leading you to the par-3 #11.  It was only when we got out to Bandon that Jim and I learned exactly where David Kidd's holes for Bandon Dunes had encroached onto the property for Pacific -- and that my 10th tee was in the middle of the 7th fairway at Bandon Dunes.  So, I understood right away that we would likely be "stuck" with back to back par-3 holes -- and that I needed to find a par-4 hole to deliver me to the green site for #9, which was a pretty awkward location up on a high spot.  With the south side of it shut off by holes at Bandon, the only way I could see to get to it was to start off the knob that is now #9 tee, and play diagonally up and over two low ridges.

That's probably the best example at Pacific of what I'm talking about.  That is not a hole I found on the topo and thought would be cool.  It's a hole I realized we had to build, over difficult terrain, but it's one of the keys to the course.  I understand Bill Seitz's argument that one should try their best to disguise the connectors and make them go away, but I don't agree with that at all -- that's what leads guys to bulldoze features and drain the character out of the course.

What I am saying is that some of the very best holes are some of the ones you would have avoided if you could have figured out how.  A lot of the holes I've listed of my own in this category are among my very best golf holes.  I'm not claiming to be a genius in finding them -- because they were often holes I felt stuck with, instead of ones that I found right away.  It took me about two YEARS to figure out what to do with the 7th at Ballyneal, looking at a dozen other bad solutions, before the right one finally occurred to me, after the course was more than half built.  But thank God I hadn't blown up the green site in the meantime.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

Very cool Tom, thanks for the insight...

To your point, after my first round at Pacific Dunes, and probably still today, my favorite hole was/is #6 and as for Ballyneal, #7 is easily one of my favorites as well.

It would be fascinating to hear what "great" holes didn't make it in the final routings of the courses we love because they didn't fit for one reason or another - I would guess solving the routing dilemma causes many sleepless nights for architects.

I can't imagine Pacific Dunes without #6 or Ballyneal without #7...

I know GCA takes some abuse from time to time about the OT threads, some of the abuse that is dished out, and how it has changed over the years - but this thread is perfect example of why I think this site is so valuable and fascinating.  It certainly is a privilege to be able to drink a cup of coffee at 7a on a Saturday and learn about the process and hear directly from the people responsible for these places we love so much...

[BHoover]

Very interesting topic and one about which I've never given much, if any, thought. As Chris Hufnagel said previously, I have zero knowledge about how a course is or should be routed. But I do think it's interesting how the architect may use some ingenuity on these connector holes that don't enjoy the same advantages as the other holes, whether because of the land itself or lack of a view or whatever.

The 7th at Kingsley, in my mind, is not so much a connector hole as it is a connector tee shot. From 200 yards in, the hole is fantastic. It is the tee shot that is somewhat awkward. But perhaps that was Mike Devries' intent--to make the golfer feel uncomfortable on the tee?

Tom brought up the 13th at The Golf Club as an example. I had to go back and remind myself about the hole. Then it hit me, the 13th is on flat ground, compared to the holes that follow it, but it has two very interesting features that make it a good hole IMO. The first is the use of the railroad tie "wall" and the green that actually sits below the level of the pond to the left of the green site. The green itself also has quite a bit of subtle movement that makes putting tricky (I'll point out, however, that I birdied the hole the last time I played it  ).

Anyway, here are a couple of pictures that show the features I'm talking about better than I can describe them.

View from the tee


Then from the transition of the rough to the fairway mid-way to the green

[Tom_Doak]

It would be fascinating to hear what "great" holes didn't make it in the final routings of the course we love because they didn't fit for one reason or another - I would guess solving the routing dilemma causes many sleepless nights for architects.

I have learned never to talk about these.  It just encourages others to second-guess the process and conclude that the course could have been ever better somehow, because it's easier to see the great hole you had to leave out, than the crappy connector hole that would also have had to be included.  That's the flip side of this coin -- you have to be able to discern between which awkward connector holes you can turn into something, and which are just going to drag you down.

[Wade Whitehead]

Merion #13 was the first hole that popped into my mind when I read the title of this thread.

A question: Are awkward connectors less likely to appear on courses that don't place a priority on walking during the design process?  Another current thread on "cart courses" criticizes long transitions between greens and tees, but maybe those transitions (which promote or require riding) allow the architect to use the "best" holes available, without worrying about actually connecting them.  Could absence of awkward connectors be an asset when walking isn't such a consideration?

WW

[David Royer]

Tom,  I find your comments regarding 18 at Ballyneal of great interest.  I always assumed that 17 was the connector hole to 18.  I always thought the issue of 18 was where the buildings were located.  I appreciate the views to west in the evening, however it would seem appropriate that one could reflect on the golf course had a building connector such as Jacks Shack had been built behind 18 green. Do you view  11 at Streamsong a connector? 

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, I think it's very generous of you to share these insights before you publish your routing book.  I'm sure "awkward connector holes" will be an important chapter.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Without the awkward connector hole,  what's the alternative. ?

Pat,

A few of these have been noted, but the possibilities are to always route on flattish ground, and whenever a hole is awkward or simply featureless, the typical fix is something cool but man made to make up for it.

Another fix is the "awkward connector path", which frankly, I have opted for far more than an awkward hole.  Unless your global design criteria are walking and moving no earth, which Tom's are to a larger degree than most, this seems like a compromise, but not the ultimate compromise.

Third is the "massive earthmoving" fix, favored by Fazio and most others to a lesser degree.

I usually define an awkward hole as one "up and over a hill", i.e., blind, one with walk backs to the next tee on two successive holes (i.e., trying to put three holes in a two hole area) and one in a clearly too narrow space.  I suppose there could also be one where the topographical features just fall in the wrong places, or are just too steep for good golf, but as noted, those can often be fixed with earthmoving.

While harder to discuss, eliminating the awkward hole can usually be done with just a little more hard work in routing, but then, I have rarely gotten truly spectacular sites, either, which might cause this problem a bit more.  I once had a conversation with a gca who commented that each of his courses had a few bad holes, because he rarely had time or wanted to work hard enough to eliminate them.  To him, it was acceptable to have a bad hole, which just stunned me.  

At the Doak or Fazio level, heck even my level, it is clear that a better architect does accept as a "global design criteria" the dictum" of no bad holes at any cost."  It is an interesting study to see how each fixes the weakest natural hole on the golf course.

[Andrew Lewis]

Tom -

The prospect of a routing-focused book is most appealing.  Like Chris Hufnagel, I will qualify myself as part of "the 99pct" when it comes to that topic -- perhaps I can recognize obvious connector holes, but the process leading to such decisions remains something of a black box.

I'm hopeful that on this great thread in advance of the book, you might be able to share your thoughts on whether certain architects more frequently encountered (and thus addressed) certain types of "connector challenges" due to their respective styles -- versus the more typical questions of getting back to the clubhouse on the 18th.

For example, I have read on this board several times that Colt made a habit of first staking out his one-shot holes.  Did that thus mean that his courses would have a greater prevalence of "connector" par 4 and par 5 holes to make the par 3's work?

Likewise, Ross is said to have scouted properties for potential green sites benched into hills.  Did that preference have any bearing on the type/style of holes he designed to navigate to/from those sites?

And for CBM and Raynor, did their use of templates require looking first for a certain set of suitable greensites and terrain to accommodate those holes -- such as the Alps or Redan -- whereas others could be plopped in almost anywhere -- such as the Short or Biarritz?

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts as I appreciate your time in helping us understand not just "what" we are seeing, but also "why".

Cheers, Andrew

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()