News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Don_Mahaffey

Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2013, 09:18:05 AM »
How a golf course gets routed fascinates me. Even just participating in the armchair routing contests, it seems like it always comes down to how you get into and out of certain areas.

How much discipline does it take to walk away from an obvious good hole because building the hole means you paint yourself in a corner and the way out is too awkward.

Recognizing connector holes is a fascinating topic, but I'd also be curious to hear about great holes that were passed up due to seemingly impossible connections.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2013, 09:28:19 AM »
Do awkward connecting holes need to be mid-round?

Would it be fair to say that some yee olde classic courses have awkward connecting holes at the start and finish where the clubhouse or 1st tee lies in flat land at the end of the town/start of the links but where the real meat of the course lies further out - 1st and 18th at TOC could be an example. So could the 1st and 18th at Westward Ho!, 1st and 18th at Tain, 1st and 18th at Machrihanish.
Just a thought.
All the best.

Steve Salmen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2013, 09:32:19 AM »
I think 15 and 16 at Crystal more awkwardly connect 14 to 17 tee than does 17 connect 16 green to 18 tee. 15 and 16 are the relatively weakest links on the course. I think 17 is a spectacular golf hole.

Don_Mahaffey

Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2013, 09:47:35 AM »
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.

I missed this post from Tom so I guess we will not be hearing about holes that might have been but didn't make the cut due to routing issues.

Another question I have is how often architects get it wrong about which holes will be good, and which will be viewed as obvious connections.
When the awkward connector turns out to be the better hole, I have to ask why it wasn't seen that way in the first place? Is it because we have a pre determined view of what is "golfy"? Is it because we spend more time during construction making the hole better? Or is it simply a fact that we really never know which holes will be view as "the best" until the course has been in play for a few years.
Or maybe, and my preferred angle, is it because we underestimate the golfing public and that connector which rides a ridge and scares us due to its severity is actually a blast to play?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2013, 09:52:57 AM »

Another question I have is how often architects get it wrong about which holes will be good, and which will be viewed as obvious connections.
When the awkward connector turns out to be the better hole, I have to ask why it wasn't seen that way in the first place? Is it because we have a pre determined view of what is "golfy"? Is it because we spend more time during construction making the hole better? Or is it simply a fact that we really never know which holes will be view as "the best" until the course has been in play for a few years.
Or maybe, and my preferred angle, is it because we underestimate the golfing public and that connector which rides a ridge and scares us due to its severity is actually a blast to play?

Don:

I think it's a combination of your last point, and your second.  I believe I have tended to let the great natural holes [say, #13 at Pacific Dunes] speak for themselves, and not add in one or two little tweaks to make them even better -- whereas on the holes I'm concerned about, we keep working on them and working on them right up til seeding.  In hindsight, maybe I didn't make the 13th at Pacific as awesome as it could be.  Or, maybe I'm right not to try and compete with Mother Nature, and restrict my tinkering to the holes that need it the most.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2013, 10:03:51 AM »
Thomas,

Some would say that the practice of placing the clubhouse on the highest hill, which has been very prominent for a long time, causes most 9th and 18th holes to be "awkwardly uphill".  Not sure if they are technically connectors.

Tom Doak/Don M,

As to "letting natural holes speak for themselves" I have (or the owner has) taken "favorite hole surveys" on most of my courses, including those on great natural sites, such as my MN courses.  Inevitably, holes with a lot of bunkers make the cut over those that are less visually spectacular, but on great natural land.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 10:07:13 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2013, 10:12:12 AM »
Just to get some sense of what routing is, I've spent a fair amount of time trying to come up with a re-routing of the front nine at my course and have gained more appreciation for this topic.  No matter how I do it there is some severe ground in one corner that needs to be dealt with and you need to get back to the starting point.  

I have not come up with any solution that I am confident would improve on what exists now although one approach I thought of included a very goofy short dogleg par four up and over a hill and around some wetlands.  My guess is that "connector hole" would be terrible in most hands but if it were well designed could be the best hole on the course.  

Peter Pallotta

Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2013, 10:27:07 AM »
A fascinating topic and a very good thread - I especially liked Don and Tom's last exchange, and Tom's thought that it's the quality of those 4 or 5 awkward holes that determine whether a course is really outstanding or not. (It's like being allowed to look at Hitchcock's story boards for "Rear Window", or listening to a comic explain how a joke is constructed and why it works.) I don't think anyone has used the term "transition hole" yet, and I don't know whether that's a synonym for awkward/connector hole -- but it strikes me that in either case those terms are only applied in retrospect, i.e. after a golfer has played a series of holes or the whole round, and starts thinking about his favourite holes and the ones he thinks best. And, since the golf holes are compared to eachother (and thus we're speaking in relative terms) some holes have to be thought of as better than the rest, and some not as good -- even if in absolute terms all 18 are good golf holes. Which is to say, while the architect knows (or think he knows) what the transition/connector/awkward holes are, the golfer will only experience them that way if, for a range of reasons, he decides that they are indeed not as good, relatively speaking, as the rest. But what if he doesn't judge them less good? Well then we get the interesting result that, at one and the same time, the same golf hole is (in theory, for the architect) a transition/awkward hole and (in practice, for the golfer) one of the most interesting holes on the course. All this reminds me of one of my favourite movies, The Godfather. A stylish and smart movie, right? Yes -- but note how on-the-nose and almost banal these three lines are, each one of them the equivalent of a connector hole, something that links what we've already seen with what we're about to see, and that do so in (what could seem) a very obvious way: very early on, Michael says to Kay "That's my family, Kay, that's not me"; and then at the half way point of the film, after the Don's been shot, Michael holds his hand in the hospital and says "I'm with you now, Pops"; and then, near the end, in the garden, the old Don and his son sit together, and Michael says 'We'll get there, pops".  And yet, it all works beautifully, and no one (that I know of) ever winces when the lines are first spoken and when he first hears those lines, because they are made to work -- and because, it is only in retrospect, and after many viewings, that their "obviousness" ever occurs to anyone.  

Peter
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 10:43:51 AM by PPallotta »

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2013, 10:40:10 AM »
The template for all "connector" holes should be the 1st and 18th at the Old Course.

So, the R&A is sitting there in their Mausoleum for the barely alive with ~100 potentially great golf holes to the North and the East but with a flat as a pancake polo field of 1/4 mile square sitting in front of them.  How do they get from their clubhouse to the golf?  Well, they could move the clubhouse down to the Himalayas, but what would the ladies think?, and how would they get up and back to the town to buy their jugs of claret?  And then came the Eureka moment!

Keep the clubhouse, put a 1st and 18th on the polo fields, and golf course architecture be damned!  Whoever thought that one up deserved several flagons of Medoc.

Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Peter Pallotta

Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2013, 10:53:53 AM »
And then came the Eureka moment! Keep the clubhouse, put a 1st and 18th on the polo fields, and golf course architecture be damned! Whoever thought that one up deserved several flagons of Medoc.

Exactly. Really good!

Spoken like a true cynical-savant!  :)

Peter
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 11:02:32 AM by PPallotta »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2013, 11:29:21 AM »
As to "letting natural holes speak for themselves" I have (or the owner has) taken "favorite hole surveys" on most of my courses, including those on great natural sites, such as my MN courses.  Inevitably, holes with a lot of bunkers make the cut over those that are less visually spectacular, but on great natural land.

Jeff:

Usually, the favorite holes on my courses are the waterfront holes, where we're blessed to be working along the water -- although that is NOT true of Barnbougle Dunes.  In other locations, sometimes it's because of the bunkers, sometimes it's because of a wild green, but often it's a short par-4 that's on wild ground.  It is rarely ever the par-3's, because I tend to use the par-3's as connectors ... which reminds me to get back to another post.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2013, 11:40:36 AM »
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

Andrew:

I didn't respond to your post at first because to a large degree, I would just be speculating on older courses as to what features the architect saw first, or last.  I could make some good guesses, but I shouldn't.  It's just too bad that those architects did not leave us more record of their choices.

That's why I've decided to focus my book on my own courses, and how the routings of them came to be.  I believe that the routings are the #1 thing that make them different than others' work, and I know that it's the topic that has gotten the least attention in golf design literature, apart from Forrest Richardson's book.  However, it is so site-specific, that I feel like the only way to tackle it is to go back over the solutions to past puzzles out loud, and I can only do that by focusing on my own.

In general, as I said in the last post, my preference is to use the par-3 holes as connectors.  My feeling is that if you can turn a good green site into a longer hole, you should, unless it requires a forced carry or it's too severe for anything but a controlled par-3 approach length.  Also, I think that if you have to create a hole in difficult terrain, it's MUCH easier and less expensive to create a green site for a par-3, than a much larger landing area for a longer hole.

By the same token, sometimes you will have to make a transition over a longer distance, and sometimes [as with the 7th at Rock Creek] you CAN'T use a par-3 because you are transitioning to or from another par-3, and you are trying to avoid two in a row.  So, a lot of my transition holes turn out to be half-par holes making the connection between two other holes at an awkward distance apart.  That turns out to work really well, because you have more freedom to design something a bit wild when it's a relatively short par-4 and golfers don't have to try to hit driver from the tee.  Like the hole that started this thread -- the 17th at Crystal Downs.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2013, 11:46:46 AM »
Peter:

Great post.  You reminded me of one of my other favorite Coppola scenes, another where he is able to capture a central theme of the movie in a sparse few words.  I'm talking about the bunker scene in Apocalypse Now where Willard asks Roach "Do you know who's in charge here?"  The simple "Yeah" in response was one of the most powerful moments in the film for me, and stands in contrast to Kilgore's aside that "Someday this war is going to end."

Back to the topic at hand, using music as an analogy.  My favorite band, although never using the same setlist twice, has a basic structure to their shows.  They play two sets usually comprised of around 9 or 10 songs each.  They start the first set with a hook, generally a song (or combination of songs) that sets the tone for the evening, moves on to a slower section of the first set and closes before intermission with a build up of energy.  The second set generally follows the model of the first.  But what makes them a compelling band to me is how while within the construct of the tone of the show they get from those moments of high energy down to the more contemplative lows before reaching the set closing crescendos.  Its the song combinations, the way they connect songs together without breaking the music and the ability to make the non-obvious leap that is their strength.  You never know what you're going to get, and at the best of shows it all comes together perfectly.  

In all of the talk about best holes and why course X is greater than course Y, we often dismiss these concepts of flow and contrast and surprise in favor of discussing the highlights.  Its easy to say that Pac Dunes (to use an example) is great because of holes like 4, 6, 11, 13 and 16, but to me the greatness of the course lies not solely in these standout holes, but in the entire journey itself as well.  Its the mix of shots that are required, the changes in direction and elevation and the moments of revelation that make the course special.  To me, holes like 12 are the contemplative moments, holes that may not offer the most exciting or demanding shots, but work so well when compared and contrasted with what came before, and what you will play afterwards.  And as Tom suggests, these are the moments where the thinking golfer has the chance to study the work the architect did on the parts of the course that may not have jumped off the topo map as a golf hole.

Pac Dunes has the luxury of some outstanding visual crescendos as well, which add to the story the course tells.  The three ocean visits provide their own rhythm to the round.  But to me its the moments where the course demands you interact with the ground you're playing over that provide its central theme (its Pacino lines, if you will).  Its using the slopes on 5 and 12, or aiming off the green on your approach into 8, or playing a shot into 17 that is designed to land short of the green.  That's what the course is about, and it shows not only in the obvious holes, but in the connector holes as well.

I'm not suggesting that every golf course has to follow the "two set" model.  There are courses I feel work well in thirds, like Shoreacres, Bandon Trails and Sleepy Hollow.  And courses that build to one dominating high moment, like Cypress.  Just as each parcel of land is different, each course will tell a different story, at a different pace, with different moments of awe and wonder along the way.

Sven


"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Tim Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2013, 01:29:20 PM »
In Colt and Alison's book, Some Essays on Golf Course Architecture, they mention that when routing a golf course several solid holes should never be sacrificed for one outstanding hole. Essentially what this said to me was that if a hole would require many connector holes to reach it, it should be scratched in favor of having a multitude of solid holes rather than several awkward holes and one outstanding hole. I would be interested to hear what some modern architects would say about this considering that many of these awkward holes can be made less awkward with modern shaping equipment.  

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2013, 01:32:09 PM »
TD,

Yes, the water holes (or usually the best view holes) usually rank high.  I have never had a "wild green" hole come out with comments other than "blow the damn thing up!" so I find that comment interesting......

But, the short version is that (with apologies) that we probably cannot count on the average golfer to recognize the problems of connector holes, or really much else in architecture.  Your destination courses get a much higher per cent of architecture nerds.  Mine seem to get play from the "architecture turds".  Just made that one up.  Crass, but it rhymes.....

Tim,

I have heard the "never sacrifice for one hole" mantra from several sources, all newer than Colt, so perhaps borrowed.  While it doesn't always work out that way, I do recall several occasions where I did sacrifice perhaps the best hole just because it didn't "play well with others" in the routing.  As TD notes, its sort of hard to look back and evaluate the "what ifs" of a situation like that.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2013, 01:57:03 PM »
In Colt and Alison's book, Some Essays on Golf Course Architecture, they mention that when routing a golf course several solid holes should never be sacrificed for one outstanding hole. Essentially what this said to me was that if a hole would require many connector holes to reach it, it should be scratched in favor of having a multitude of solid holes rather than several awkward holes and one outstanding hole. I would be interested to hear what some modern architects would say about this considering that many of these awkward holes can be made less awkward with modern shaping equipment.  

Tim:

I have given up lots of good holes over the years in order to avoid a bad one [or find a better one], but I do not think I have given up on the potential best hole on the course very often at all.  For holes of that class, I just keep working on finding a way to keep them as part of the plan, and usually I find that there is a way.

There aren't many places where I've sacrificed a lot for one hole.  The 12th at Dismal is a bit of a connector getting you to #13, but there was likely always going to be some combination of holes on that part of the ground, and those are the best I could come up with, one of them way more exciting than the other.


Frank Pont

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #41 on: October 26, 2013, 02:29:50 PM »
But Colt also in his routings would first "find" his par 3 holes and then try to fit them in with the rest of the routings.

Comparing Simpson and Colt, I see a lot more connector holes on Simpson courses than on Colt courses.

Hole 9 at Cruden Bay might be one of the most obvious of these.

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #42 on: October 26, 2013, 02:43:17 PM »
13 at Olympia Fields North is a great example of this. A mid-length one-shotter that is laid out atop a short and narrow ridge with a deep hazard to the left, the hole's main function is to tie 12 green to the tee at the signature hole 14th hole.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #43 on: October 26, 2013, 02:56:08 PM »
Do awkward connecting holes need to be mid-round?

Would it be fair to say that some yee olde classic courses have awkward connecting holes at the start and finish where the clubhouse or 1st tee lies in flat land at the end of the town/start of the links but where the real meat of the course lies further out - 1st and 18th at TOC could be an example. So could the 1st and 18th at Westward Ho!, 1st and 18th at Tain, 1st and 18th at Machrihanish.
Just a thought.
All the best.

Sorry, Thomas, for missing this before I submitted a later post on 1 and 18 at TOC.  My bad....

After finally reading your post above I do have to comment on your other examples of Tain and Westward Ho!  I've played the former ~10 times and I think that 1 and 18 are OK, if a bit funky, but you are generally right.  However, having played RND two days in a row last month (after a 32 year hiatus.....), you are spot on.  In fact, I think that Westward Ho! has 9 connecting holes, namely 1, 2 and 12-18.  The course is glorious when you get into the dunes (i.e. 3-11) but far too prosaic when you are away from them.  Sorry to say so for the RND lovers on this site, (e.g. Ran and Tommy W.) but IMHO I now consider this course to be just average for UK links courses.

Rich

PS--surety you mean 17 and 18 at Machrihanish, rather than 1 and 18?  The 1st is a pretty decent golf hole, no?


« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 03:06:20 PM by Rich Goodale »
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #44 on: October 26, 2013, 03:04:59 PM »
Hole 9 at Cruden Bay might be one of the most obvious of these.

This would seem a very good example.

Would the 7th, 1st section of the 8th plus the 16th at Dornoch also be examples of awkward connector holes on a famous course?

And further to my earlier post about 1st and 18th holes, the first few and last few holes at Nairn could also be considered as falling into this category.

All the best

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #45 on: October 26, 2013, 05:55:14 PM »
Quote
Jeff:

Usually, the favorite holes on my courses are the waterfront holes, where we're blessed to be working along the water -- although that is NOT true of Barnbougle Dunes.  In other locations, sometimes it's because of the bunkers, sometimes it's because of a wild green, but often it's a short par-4 that's on wild ground.  It is rarely ever the par-3's, because I tend to use the par-3's as connectors ... which reminds me to get back to another post.
Tom, At Riverfront the par 3, 4th is the best hole. i had always assumed that the entire routing of the front nine was centered around the 4th.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 06:05:50 PM by Carl Rogers »
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Patrick_Mucci

Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #46 on: October 26, 2013, 05:57:38 PM »
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.


Jeff,

Thanks.

How often is the connector hole, the weakest hole ?



Grant Saunders

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #47 on: October 26, 2013, 06:31:29 PM »
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.


Jeff,

Thanks.

How often is the connector hole, the weakest hole ?



I would also pose the inverse question: how often is the connector hole(s) the strongest on the course?

I am a believer that sometimes restrictions or factors that may limit certain options can in fact be the genesis for creative solutions and the result may infact turn out better. Reducing options can help focus on the remaining choices with less distraction.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #48 on: October 26, 2013, 06:51:37 PM »
I agree with Tom.  If there is going to be somewhere where things aren't going to flow as well as hoped, make it stand out.  Connector holes can be awesome.  I always think of St Enodoc's 4th as a great example.  It also has the 10th.  

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: In Praise of the Awkward Connector Hole
« Reply #49 on: October 26, 2013, 11:28:57 PM »
Grant,

I think TD is saying that sometimes, not always, the connector is the strongest hole, because the designer works a bit harder at it.  I agree, and it does seem to prove both the value of good design, and perhaps, the value of not always being a minimalist, but rather, being a necessitist....another made up word of mine.

But really, I cannot recall thinking in terms of a connector hole in previous routings, and this thread has made me think of it.  I have heard it here on golf club atlas a few times, too, before.  As I said, I often just route and route and route until I get out of the jam, best I can.  Or build a better hole at the expense of a longer walk.

I would classify my third at Woodland Hills in Nebraska as a connector - its an up and over, and as it happens, the owner secured a bit of land across a creek for the eventual 4th and 5th holes, so in that case, I ended up with an awkward hole to get to a piece of land.  4 and 11 at Firekeeper might be another.  The 14th and 15th at Colbert Hills might be one, in that I shortened up 14 and lengthened 15 to avoid blasting more rock to build the longer 14th.

I would need to keep thinking over the 800+ holes I have routed to think of another one.....Of course, I don't count housing holes intended to stretch the golf course through real estate to an unused part of the property, either.......
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back