Can a hole that can only be played one way be a great hole?

[Thomas Dai]

Can a hole that can only be played one way be described as a great hole?
I ask this because I saw an Instagram post recently of a clifftop par-3 being built by a very famous architectural partnership that played from a clifftop tee across a wide horseshoe shaped expanse of sea to a green located on an opposing high and narrow peninsula. The narrative said that a famous golf course developer had described the hole as a great hole, a 10.
But there was no way to play the hole unless the tee shot carried all the way, and it appeared to be circa 150+ yds from the top of one cliff to the top of another.
Golf is played by a great variety of players of different ages, strength and ability and of two genders so is such a hole a great hole or only a great hole for some or ….?
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

You mean like #15 at Cypress Point and #17 at TPC Sawgrass and #7 at Pebble Beach and #13 at Merion and …..?  All great holes are relative to the playing ability of the golfer.  If you can’t make the carry from any of the tees for example at CP #15 you probably wouldn’t think the hole is great.  But should you always be thinking of yourself first?  I wasn’t taught that way 😉

[Jeff_Brauer]

Agree with Mark, as long as it's only one or two per course.  Forced carries, no matter how spectacular can be overdone.  And when overdone with artificial lakes instead of the ocean, they are pretty unpleasant.

[JESII]

Agreed that "Great" can, and typically is, high demand.


Even those great holes that allow for all skill levels to complete would probably extract many many shots from an "average" golfer.

[Tom_Doak]

This is why it's a bad idea to state any ironclad laws of golf course design.


In theory, it would be great for any hole [even a par-3] to have an alternate route.  However, you should not let that ideal deprive future golfers the joy of hitting a shot over the ocean to a stunning green site.  You just have to accept that the hole will not be welcomed by ALL golfers.


Where you draw the line between your ideals and your opportunities is one of the great challenges of design, and opinions will vary about one's decisions because each golfer has his own idea of what is exciting vs. what is too penal.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I understand what you're saying but will disagree with CPC 15.  Its one thing to ask for a 175 yard carry, and quite another to ask for less than 90 yards (from closest tee).  Yes there is a subset of players who can't make that carry, but just like we shouldn't be designing for the top 1% of golfers, shouldn't we also use same rational for that same small % on the bottom end?

Hard to think that a hole like this should have been passed up on...we all would have lost something...

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
Just like #7 at Pebble Beach, I have played both holes when there is a three to four club wind and that 90 yard carry is much much longer.  I am by no means suggesting the hole should be passed up.  I am saying the opposite.  It is truly a spectacular hole, one of the best in all of golf (even if my wife would run out of balls  when the “breeze” is in her face) 

[Peter Pallotta]

Sometimes I wish Dr. Mac never drew that hole for Lido as part of the 1914 design competition. It almost single-handedly created the notion (more like a rule, actually) that great golf holes can be played in several different ways -- a metric that I've never understood. But it seems to be one that's very close to many people's hearts, and closer to a rule for good design than anything else -- which is why every time this topic comes up the exact same very few and very famous exceptions (to the rule) get mentioned.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
There are literally hundreds of other examples but I already have been spending too much time on this site to list them.  I won’t argue, most great holes present options, but not all great holes 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I didn't mean to suggest that you should list other examples (and my post wasn't even referring to your post just before it). My point was that the majority of both architects and golfers clearly believe that being able to play a golf hole in more than one way is almost-if-not-absolutely a requirement for/characteristic of a great golf hole. That seems surely to be the case, otherwise instead of just about every golf course in the world having 15-16 holes that *can* be played in different ways and maybe only 2-3 that can't be, we'd have a lot more courses where the reverse was true, or at least where the ratio is closer to 50-50.
I'll defer to your belief that there are literally hundreds of examples of great golf holes that are tough/penal/forced carries/can only be played in one way. But I guess I have to wait until I see at least a few modern courses where we get 12 or 14 or 16 of those holes strung together on the same course before I believe there isn't an inherent prejudice against them among the professionals.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Everything in moderation 

Centerline hazards are a wonderful design feature, but if a course had them on almost every hole, would you love it?  There are some examples out there but they are also rare.  Pine Valley is one example but it was designed to be penal and demand certain golf shots.  It is not a course played with a putter     By the way, #10 would be yet another hole to add to the earlier list of great holes with but one option 

Water can be a great hazard (most of the classic architects would use it a few times if it was present on site but wouldn’t go out of their way to build a pond).  Again, everything in moderation isn’t a bad design concept to keep in mind.  The same goes for holes with few if any options. 

If you think hard, there are many great holes where the second or third or should I say your approach shot to the green what ever number it is, has no options.  What options do you have for your approach to #13 at Augusta?  If you can’t hit some kind of shot in the air you are in trouble.  And by the way add #12 to the list of great holes with little to no options.

One of my favorite par fives is the 11th at Shinnecock Hills.  Add that to the list as well of great holes with no options 

[Andrew Harvie]

Every golf course needs one or two moments where there's only a singular way to play the golf hole. Some of the most enjoyable moments is playing those holes and pulling them off, so yes, I think holes can be great if there's only one way to play it.

[Stewart Abramson]

My point was that the majority of both architects and golfers clearly believe that being able to play a golf hole in more than one way is almost-if-not-absolutely a requirement for/characteristic of a great golf hole.
[/quote
 
That may be true for golfers on this site, but I have doubts that most golfers believe that. I don't think the majority of golfers think about choices.

[Matt MacIver]

Can’t Sawgrass #17 be played many different ways? Or maybe I’m thinking shots…fades, draws, punches…hard swings or take something off?  Especially since there typically isn’t a ton of wind normally. #7 at Pebble - more variety (club selection but not shot shape) or less?  Then, #12 at ANGC?

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
Not sure if you were joking or not but every hole mentioned can technically be played a different way but basically they all require some kind of forced carry.  Take a hole like #16 at Augusta National; you could even skip one off the water but I am not sure that was what the architect had in mind    I think the gist of thread is holes where the architect dictates a certain shot - Can they be great?  Yes they can but most don’t want a steady diet of them.

[Sean_A]

Mark - I didn't mean to suggest that you should list other examples (and my post wasn't even referring to your post just before it). My point was that the majority of both architects and golfers clearly believe that being able to play a golf hole in more than one way is almost-if-not-absolutely a requirement for/characteristic of a great golf hole. That seems surely to be the case, otherwise instead of just about every golf course in the world having 15-16 holes that *can* be played in different ways and maybe only 2-3 that can't be, we'd have a lot more courses where the reverse was true, or at least where the ratio is closer to 50-50.
I'll defer to your belief that there are literally hundreds of examples of great golf holes that are tough/penal/forced carries/can only be played in one way. But I guess I have to wait until I see at least a few modern courses where we get 12 or 14 or 16 of those holes strung together on the same course before I believe there isn't an inherent prejudice against them among the professionals.

I reckon that what is called a penal course probably has close to a 50-50 split with holes with options. For most of golf's history of courses, I reckon holes with options have been the dominant style of design.

Welsh Wizard, of course a hole without options can be great. Sometimes, it's not the options which make a hole great.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - and that's precisely the distinction that, for me, no longer makes much sense, i.e. penal vs strategic. I don't think golf holes actually work that way, and can't be so easily divvied up like that -- and certainly special/great golf ones don't and can't. And yet the dichotomy -- under different names and guises -- still lies behind so much of our thinking about gca.

[Sean_A]

Sean - and that's precisely the distinction that, for me, no longer makes much sense, i.e. penal vs strategic. I don't think golf holes actually work that way, and can't be so easily divvied up like that -- and certainly special/great golf ones don't and can't. And yet the dichotomy -- under different names and guises -- still lies behind so much of our thinking about gca.

Pietro

I disagree with you. In my life angles matter. I don't hit towering irons which fall out of the sky. Although, I have always thought there is a penal-strategic continuum. I have never thought of the continuum as bad to good architecture. The entire continuum is ideal. It's a matter of personal preference as to the best balance of holes to maintain interest, playability, challenge and fun. I think most golfers, most of the time, lean toward having options even if they don't realize it. To me, most of the time the concept really comes down how much can I play off grass of a decent height if I am not in the fairway. That doesn't mean I expect to always play from short rough, but for me, that is the default starting point....find the ball quickly and hit it.

Ciao

[Kevin_Reilly]

This looks like the hole referred to in the OP. 


https://www.instagram.com/p/CR2tZFZtxPe/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[Niall C]

Sometimes I wish Dr. Mac never drew that hole for Lido as part of the 1914 design competition. It almost single-handedly created the notion (more like a rule, actually) that great golf holes can be played in several different ways -- a metric that I've never understood. But it seems to be one that's very close to many people's hearts, and closer to a rule for good design than anything else -- which is why every time this topic comes up the exact same very few and very famous exceptions (to the rule) get mentioned.

Peter

MacKenzie designed holes that both the Tiger and the Rabbit could play and enjoy. The Lido hole is an extreme example that he used to show how you could have different ways to play a hole, however the principle remained the same. Was it an absolute rule ? Probably not as I'm sure he probably designed some holes where you couldn't really get by using only a putter; the short par 3 at Pasatiempo played over the gully comes to mind (17th ?) however look at his Gibraltar hole and you'll note the Rabbit could play short right (similar to the Road Hole green) and play up. There was generally always an alternative way.

As Tom say there shouldn't be any absolute rules but as a general rule of thumb I tend to think David is right and you are wrong.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Golfers come in all sorts of age, strength and physical condition, ability etc and two genders. Now I can appreciate the thrill of a challenge but why bother even playing the hole if the player knows in their heart of hearts in advance that they can’t carry an obstacle from the shortest teeing ground and reach the other side? A lost ball, or a series of lost balls, doesn’t seem like much personal fun and likely not much fun, laughter maybe excepted, for playing partners nor for groups waiting impatiently behind. Fun or purgatory? And costly fun/purgatory at that.
The Tigers and Rabbits analogy as Niall highlights is an important consideration.

Atb

[Sean_A]

Golfers come in all sorts of age, strength and physical condition, ability etc and two genders. Now I can appreciate the thrill of a challenge but why bother even playing the hole if the player knows in their heart of hearts in advance that they can’t carry an obstacle from the shortest teeing ground and reach the other side? A lost ball, or a series of lost balls, doesn’t seem like much personal fun and likely not much fun, laughter maybe excepted, for playing partners nor for groups waiting impatiently behind. Fun or purgatory? And costly fun/purgatory at that.
The Tigers and Rabbits analogy as Niall highlights is an important consideration.

Atb

Doesn't this get back to the debate about should all courses be for all golfers? I don't think so, but perhaps your take is different.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Great for some but not for others?
atb

[Kyle Harris]

There are shockingly few holes in the world where missing the green and chipping it close ISN'T an option. So that's at least two ways to play most holes. 

[Sean_A]

Great for some but not for others?
atb

Seems a reasonable conclusion. But isn't that the case for any hole?

Ciao