[Patrick_Mucci]

Grant,

If it was the strongest on the course, wouldn't the architect discover it first ?

Rather than by default ?

[Grant Saunders]

Grant,

If it was the strongest on the course, wouldn't the architect discover it first ?

Rather than by default ?

Patrick

I dont view it that way. To me, during the routing phase, a connector hole initially begins life as a compromise and therefore suffers comparatively to the other holes. If it were identified as a strong hole at the start then it would possibly be part of the requirement for a connector hole elsewhere in the routing. Potentially even immediately before of after it.

As the hole takes life on the ground, maybe some feature overlooked initially or a concept takes shape that can elevate the status of the hole from a compromise to having a genuine personality of its own. Dependant on the strength of that personality, it could even overtake one of the original "must build" holes that created the requirement for the compromise in the first place.

It may not be a frequent sequence of events, but I feel it must happen at times.

[Grant Saunders]

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.

Jeff

I havent been involved with routing a course. I would love to one day but I suspect It would be something I would really struggle with.

I have however worked as a shaper on several projects. I have always found it fascinating how often building a feature where there are few restrictions and you are confident of achieving what  is required can sometimes turn out not as well as envisaged. The opposite is true where perhaps building something without a clear vision and a bunch of existing challenges to incorporate can sometimes produce special things. Maybe its just a case of expectations being exceeded or  its one of those happy accidents that happen a lot more than golf course architects would probably admit.

[Chris Kane]

Tom, would 4W at Royal Melbourne qualify as the ultimate awkward connecting hole?

[Ken Fry]

It was touched on earlier but I'd like to get a bit more specific about routing a course that won't be walked (TD's Black Forest for example) and courses that will always be walked (Bandon).

From the architect's point of view, how does the philosophy change between the two and how does the process differ?  Does a "cart only" routing hide weakness in routing ability for some architects?

Ken

[Steve Kline]

Jeff gave his definition of an awkward connector hole. But, I don't recall reading one from Tom. Tom, what is your definition of an awkward connector hole?

Awkward to me implies a sort of forced strategy or limited options. Also, it may be a hole with an indiscernible strategy - not one that is hard to figure out but one that is not capable of being figured out. Like Jeff, it might also mean ground that is overly penal (i.e. too narrow or steep) with little chance for recovery.  It likely means a hole that is crammed in. However, several posts on here seem to be equating awkward with dull or boring , for example holes on dead flat ground. The first and 18th at TOC were mentioned. In my opinion, those holes aren't awkward. They may be more boring than the rest of the course though.

I don't know if they are connector holes, but here are a couple of holes that I find awkward.

#13 Tobacco Road - A 90-degree dog leg par 5 with a Dell green? Really? The first two shots are totally meaningless. It is a layup off the tee, a layup to 100-130 yards, and then a wedge to a dell green. Not to mention it is the third 90 degree dogleg par 5 of the course. It would be less awkward if a risky drive got you to 160-180 yards so that you had a chance to go for the green. Perhaps a shorter hole that was a par 4. But, perhaps the course had to be a par 72.

#9 Kingsley - The more I think about this hole the less I like it. It really seems to be shoe horned into a limited space. It would almost be better to just play 17 holes. It plays as an afterthought even though it wasn't. Perhaps too much thought was put into trying to make it work - hence the two different angles from the two teeing grounds. Getting from the lower ground of 8 green back up to the clubhouse seemed to pose a problem.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, would 4W at Royal Melbourne qualify as the ultimate awkward connecting hole?

Yes, it's one of the great ones.  I don't think there is any way Dr. MacKenzie set out thinking he wanted to have that blind tee shot up to the top of the hill.  But he had #5 and #6, and once he needed to make room to the left of the hole for another hole between #4 and the road, he was forced into that tee shot.  So he made the most of it!

[Tom_Doak]

From the architect's point of view, how does the philosophy change between the two and how does the process differ?  Does a "cart only" routing hide weakness in routing ability for some architects?

Ken:

I don't know that the architect's philosophy changes at all ... this stuff is a part of our makeup.  However, absolutely, thinking that people are always going to take carts means that many modern architects just avoid awkward connections by driving around them, and between them and the guys who fix everything with bulldozers, it's led to many modern architects being not all that good at routing, in my opinion.

[Tom_Doak]

Grant,

If it was the strongest on the course, wouldn't the architect discover it first ?

Rather than by default ?

Patrick:

No.  If you'll read my initial post, I gave about a dozen examples of really good holes which were NOT among the first I discovered on the property.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

Jeff:

I think a minimalist IS a necessitist [although I am probably going to coin a different word in order to market it, no offense intended   ].  Most of these awkward-turned-cool holes I've described did not require any significant earthmoving ... they just required getting over the feeling that they were awkward, or that some golfers might not like them, or that a small tweak could change everything.  

For example, the green site at Ballyneal #7 always seemed awkward and too narrow and parallel, and I would have liked to find a different site.  But then it all suddenly flipped, when I got the idea to use the slope on one side as a backboard and dig a bunker into part of the other slope so it wasn't a backboard.  And then it took about an hour to build it with an excavator, which I'm sure was the easiest green of the 18 to shape.

[Tom_Doak]

I have always found it fascinating how often building a feature where there are few restrictions and you are confident of achieving what  is required can sometimes turn out not as well as envisaged. The opposite is true where perhaps building something without a clear vision and a bunch of existing challenges to incorporate can sometimes produce special things. Maybe its just a case of expectations being exceeded or  its one of those happy accidents that happen a lot more than golf course architects would probably admit.

Grant:

Yep, that's it exactly.  Pete Dye used to say that some of his best greens were the result of a crew member totally misunderstanding what Pete had been trying to tell him, and doing something crazy different, and then Pete having to massage it into something workable.  

Indeed, I think that was one of the great problems of golf course architecture in the 1970's and 1980's -- architects had too many blank sites to work with and no restrictions, and it was hard to come up with something cool or different, because there was nothing they had to work around.  Occasionally, Pete would tell a shaper just to go "f*** up the ground" on a hole, so that he would have something to work with, instead of starting from scratch again.

[Jud_T]

#9 Kingsley - The more I think about this hole the less I like it. It really seems to be shoe horned into a limited space. It would almost be better to just play 17 holes. It plays as an afterthought even though it wasn't. Perhaps too much thought was put into trying to make it work - hence the two different angles from the two teeing grounds. Getting from the lower ground of 8 green back up to the clubhouse seemed to pose a problem.

Better to play 17 holes?  One of the funniest things I've read on here recently.  If it is an awkward connector, which I doubt it is as I don't think that green was a happy accident, then it's the poster child for the type- i.e. the ultimate love/hate hole, or as I prefer to call them, the brussel sprouts of architecture.  From the cheap seats it would seem that a par 3 would be the preferred connector since one can avoid an awkward forced layup off the tee, a la CD 17.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

Pete Dye used to say that some of his best greens were the result of a crew member totally misunderstanding what Pete had been trying to tell him, and doing something crazy different, and then Pete having to massage it into something workable.  

Indeed, I think that was one of the great problems of golf course architecture in the 1970's and 1980's -- architects had too many blank sites to work with and no restrictions, and it was hard to come up with something cool or different, because there was nothing they had to work around.  Occasionally, Pete would tell a shaper just to go "f*** up the ground" on a hole, so that he would have something to work with, instead of starting from scratch again.

I was reading a something this morning and they attributed the following quote to Dr. Alister Mackenzie - Tom's story above reminded me of it...

"There is a yarn about two rival constructors of golf courses: one of them was admiring the other's greens, and remarked that 'he never managed to get his green-keeper to make the undulations natural looking.'  The other replied that 'it was perfectly easy; he simply employed the biggest fool in the village and told him to make them flat.'"

[Tom_Doak]

I was reading a something this morning and they attributed the following quote to Dr. Alister Mackenzie - Tom's story above reminded me of it...

"There is a yarn about two rival constructors of golf courses: one of them was admiring the other's greens, and remarked that 'he never managed to get his green-keeper to make the undulations natural looking.'  The other replied that 'it was perfectly easy; he simply employed the biggest fool in the village and told him to make them flat.'"

Chris:

That quote is in both of MacKenzie's books.

I recall learning a couple of years ago that it was really about a particular project, but I can't remember which, now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Grant,

If it was the strongest on the course, wouldn't the architect discover it first ?

Rather than by default ?

Patrick

I dont view it that way.

To me, during the routing phase, a connector hole initially begins life as a compromise and therefore suffers comparatively to the other holes.


Then, by your definition, how can it be the strongest hole ?  ? ?
You've stated that it inherently suffers, comparatively, so how can it suddenly become the strongest hole ?

If it were identified as a strong hole at the start then it would possibly be part of the requirement for a connector hole elsewhere in the routing. Potentially even immediately before of after it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, first saying that the strongest hole is a connector, and then declaring that the strongest hole now needs a connector, before or after it.  It can't be both.  Either it's:
1.the strongest hole and not a connector,
2the strongest hole that needs a connector
3the strongest hole that is a connector.

And I can't see how it could be # 3, but am open to suggestions  

As the hole takes life on the ground, maybe some feature overlooked initially or a concept takes shape that can elevate the status of the hole from a compromise to having a genuine personality of its own.

But, then it's not the strongest hole at inception.
It's a lessor hole, elevated, to the strongest hole only with subsequent amendments during construction.

Dependant on the strength of that personality, it could even overtake one of the original "must build" holes that created the requirement for the compromise in the first place.

I don't disagree, but then again that means that it couldn't have been the strongest hole at the outset.

It may not be a frequent sequence of events, but I feel it must happen at times.

How can the strongest hole, at the outset, be the connector hole ?
It exists both in it's own domain and in conjunction with holes that may preceed or follow it.

Even if the holes preceeding and following it developed into the best two holes on the course, the hole in question would still be the third best of 18 holes, and certainly NOT an awkward connector hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Grant,

If it was the strongest on the course, wouldn't the architect discover it first ?

Rather than by default ?

Patrick:

No. 

If you'll read my initial post, I gave about a dozen examples of really good holes which were NOT among the first I discovered on the property.

Tom,

I don't know what the qualitative difference is, between "good holes" and the "best (strongest)" hole.

But, I'd have to ask, why were the "good" or "best" hole/s harder to discover ?

Why did they not reveal themselves earlier ?

[Grant Saunders]

Grant,

If it was the strongest on the course, wouldn't the architect discover it first ?

Rather than by default ?

Patrick

I dont view it that way.

To me, during the routing phase, a connector hole initially begins life as a compromise and therefore suffers comparatively to the other holes.


Then, by your definition, how can it be the strongest hole ?  ? ?
You've stated that it inherently suffers, comparatively, so how can it suddenly become the strongest hole ?

Routing and early planning does not necessarily equal what ultimately is produced on the ground. Compared to other holes on paper, the connector hole is not there as a first choice so naturally at this point it cant really be considered as good as the others. However, that is immaterial as it is the final product not the plans which are relevant for judgement.

If it were identified as a strong hole at the start then it would possibly be part of the requirement for a connector hole elsewhere in the routing. Potentially even immediately before of after it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, first saying that the strongest hole is a connector, and then declaring that the strongest hole now needs a connector, before or after it.  It can't be both.  Either it's:
1.the strongest hole and not a connector,
2the strongest hole that needs a connector
3the strongest hole that is a connector.

And I can't see how it could be # 3, but am open to suggestions  

If it were identified as a strong hole then it isn't a connector hole but rather a first choice hole.

As the hole takes life on the ground, maybe some feature overlooked initially or a concept takes shape that can elevate the status of the hole from a compromise to having a genuine personality of its own.

But, then it's not the strongest hole at inception.
It's a lessor hole, elevated, to the strongest hole only with subsequent amendments during construction.

No, the hole started life as a connector and viewed as a potential weakness but ultimately the final product for a variety of reasons ended up much better than anticipated.

Dependant on the strength of that personality, it could even overtake one of the original "must build" holes that created the requirement for the compromise in the first place.

I don't disagree, but then again that means that it couldn't have been the strongest hole at the outset.

It may not be a frequent sequence of events, but I feel it must happen at times.

How can the strongest hole, at the outset, be the connector hole ?

Because it was never a connector hole at the outset. It was considered a strong hole worth building.

It exists both in it's own domain and in conjunction with holes that may preceed or follow it.

Even if the holes preceeding and following it developed into the best two holes on the course, the hole in question would still be the third best of 18 holes, and certainly NOT an awkward connector hole.

I think connector holes can exist on paper but not on the ground which is my point. Without the architect actually coming forth with examples, we as golfers will possibly never know. Certainly though, there will be holes which can be identified which are awkward and clearly a compromise.

Toms example about the 7th at Ballyneal (which I haven't seen) is interesting as it is probably garners some of the highest praise of his work. Yet, as he has admitted, he was looking at alternatives.

Holes should be judged by what is on the ground and not how they got there.

[Chris Kane]

Yes, it's one of the great ones.  I don't think there is any way Dr. MacKenzie set out thinking he wanted to have that blind tee shot up to the top of the hill.  But he had #5 and #6, and once he needed to make room to the left of the hole for another hole between #4 and the road, he was forced into that tee shot.  So he made the most of it!

Thanks - for mine it is the perfect example of one less than ideal shot which makes a string of great holes around it possible. And the moment you walk over the hill all is forgotten as the spectacular long approach shot reveals itself, probably my favourite shot on the property.

Is the 13th tee shot at St Andrews Beach another example? Awkward blind tee shot, which sets up a spectacular second.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Grant,

I haven't seen the hole either, so I can't comment

[JMEvensky]

From He Who Is Missed.

I just noticed a fascinating thread on Golfclubatlas by Doak entitled "In Praise of Connector Holes." In that thread Don Mahaffey asked what great holes may've been originally passed up because they seemed to be 'impossible' connections. I would have to say perhaps the greatest may be the 5th at PV which apparently Crump just could not originally see for a variety of reasons. It clearly took Colt to show it to him. That hole not only connected the 5th to the present 6th (the 8th on Crump's original routing), I would say it pretty much unlocked the remainder of the routing and in the process became one of the most famous par 3s in the world. Would you mind posting that for me to Mahaffey? It is also very true to say what Doak did in his initial post---that unless someone actually tries to do a bona vide routing that gets vetted by real entities, it is extremely hard to understand what it takes. Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()