[Tom_Doak]

I’ve been playing great courses for the last 20+ years. If I’ve learned anything it’s that no individual hole is greater than another. Some just find their way into conversation easier.

I like a lot of the answers on here but I still think John’s original post is my favourite:

Sure, there are holes that excel in strategy. But seeing as strategy is overrated, there are far more holes that have just become easy touch points and standard bearers for discussions on great holes, even if they are no better or worse than half a dozen other holes on their respective courses.

For that reason, I have always advocated for the “whole” ahead of chasing individual hole greatness: The album over the three hit singles. That seems to be where I differ from other architects on here.

You are a golf course architect but you denounce the quest to build a great golf hole?


It's one thing to opine that you should not detract from another hole in the eighteen in order to build one great one.  I might agree with you on that -- although it would depend on the circumstance.  [If you've only got one chance to build a great hole on a particular project, you should probably go for it.]


It's another thing to say you aren't chasing the opportunity to build great holes.  WTF are you trying to do then?

[Ronald Montesano]

From playing Merion East on consecutive days, after being on site for the Walker Cup (photos) and years before the Curtis Cup (photos): I learned that Merion East demands great execution on each shot, and suggests that you look for the best places to aim and land your ball. I also learned that the manner in which the world's top amateurs tour a course, bears little resemblance nor symmetry to the manner in which we the common, tour a course.


From playing Bethpage Black: I learned that a public-access course can be maintained in a private-club manner, if the municipality cares to do so. I learned that extraordinary length may be required to play holes in the manner espoused by the caretakers, and that I am in short supply of said length. As a result, I must use my guile and wisdom, but I must also understand that I will not be in possesion of both on each and every shot.


From walking and photographing Crystal Downs, while my three buddies played with our host: I learned that I desperately wanted to play Crystal Downs! I also learned that I wanted my one generous buddy, who offered to let me play the back nine in his place, should play the entire 18, to have the complete experience. I don't know that I'll get back that way again, but I did enjoy walking the course and finding the best angles for photography.


From playing and shooting Pasatiempo: I learned that any MacKenzie course is a treat, especially those that are valued as MacKenzie courses (courgh, Scarlet, cough.) AM was a rare breed among all the rare, great architects. In fact, he may not have been a breed at all, despite the hackneyed saying. I learned that long and deceitful holes go hand in hand with short, deceitful holes. I also learned that the 18th at Pasa has a twin across the country, in the 18th hole at Zanesville Country Club.


From playing courses at Bandon and Sandon (Sand Valley): I learned that width is a huge balance point for extreme movement. The land can heave and ho all it wants, but if you give a golfer room, event the sloppiest strikers will have a chance to make the next shot.


From playing NGLA: I learned that some golf courses inspire you to play better than you thought you could. I had seen NGLA at the Walker Cup (three days of photos) and when I had the chance to play there, I could not believe how well I played holes 4 through 18 (the first three were a gentle warm-up, shall we say.)


In conclusion, the element of great golf courses that separates them even more than the routing, is the putting surfaces. The blend of speed, undulation, and tilt reduces us all to naked competitors. We have no place to hide.

[Tim Martin]

I’ve been playing great courses for the last 20+ years. If I’ve learned anything it’s that no individual hole is greater than another. Some just find their way into conversation easier.

I like a lot of the answers on here but I still think John’s original post is my favourite:

Sure, there are holes that excel in strategy. But seeing as strategy is overrated, there are far more holes that have just become easy touch points and standard bearers for discussions on great holes, even if they are no better or worse than half a dozen other holes on their respective courses.

For that reason, I have always advocated for the “whole” ahead of chasing individual hole greatness: The album over the three hit singles. That seems to be where I differ from other architects on here.

You are a golf course architect but you denounce the quest to build a great golf hole?


It's one thing to opine that you should not detract from another hole in the eighteen in order to build one great one.  I might agree with you on that -- although it would depend on the circumstance.  [If you've only got one chance to build a great hole on a particular project, you should probably go for it.]


It's another thing to say you aren't chasing the opportunity to build great holes.  WTF are you trying to do then?

It seems antithetical to the process not to strive to build great holes.

[John Kirk]

The main things I've learned from playing great golf courses are:

A.  How much fun golf can be.

B.  Refining my strategic abilities.  Great golf courses make you think about what you're doing, and reward shots that deserve it.  At times, a great course will provoke one's sense of playfulness.  It's a game!


My two other comments are:

1.  Greatness is hard to define, but I know it when I see and play it, and the consensus favorites aren't necessarily the great ones.

2.  One really bad hole on a course is far more destructive than the benefit derived from one extraordinarily good hole.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Having learned from the wise and well-travelled Dan Moore that I should play Lawsonia, I played it and learned about Langford and Moreau, and learned that great engineering can be represented in a great golf course.

And also, what John Kirk said


[size=78%]

A.  How much fun golf can be.

B.  Great golf courses make you think about what you're doing, and reward shots that deserve it.   

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’ve been playing great courses for the last 20+ years. If I’ve learned anything it’s that no individual hole is greater than another. Some just find their way into conversation easier.

I like a lot of the answers on here but I still think John’s original post is my favourite:

Sure, there are holes that excel in strategy. But seeing as strategy is overrated, there are far more holes that have just become easy touch points and standard bearers for discussions on great holes, even if they are no better or worse than half a dozen other holes on their respective courses.

For that reason, I have always advocated for the “whole” ahead of chasing individual hole greatness: The album over the three hit singles. That seems to be where I differ from other architects on here.

You are a golf course architect but you denounce the quest to build a great golf hole?


It's one thing to opine that you should not detract from another hole in the eighteen in order to build one great one.  I might agree with you on that -- although it would depend on the circumstance.  [If you've only got one chance to build a great hole on a particular project, you should probably go for it.]


It's another thing to say you aren't chasing the opportunity to build great holes.  WTF are you trying to do then?

Your middle paragraph is exactly what I’m saying. Of course I’m going to build the best / greatest hole I can if the opportunity arises and it doesn’t detract from the whole but only adds. To do otherwise would just be stupid…. I am merely indicating that the whole takes precedent.

[John Kavanaugh]

2.  One really bad hole on a course is far more destructive than the benefit derived from one extraordinarily good hole.

Just wanted to make sure this excellent observation wasn’t a thread killer, as you are so skilled at doing. I’ve been a long time member at an ex-tour course that has such an abhorrent first hole that it has kept me away for the last decade. I’ve built all their infrastructure so when I attempted to resign the chairmen called me an ungrateful pussy. Now I’m a member for life. I hope I live long enough to regret staying.

[Ronald Montesano]

"Just wanted to make sure this excellent observation wasn’t a thread killer, as you are so skilled at doing. I’ve been a long time member at an ex-tour course that has such an abhorrent first hole that it has kept me away for the last decade. I’ve built all their infrastructure so when I attempted to resign the chairmen called me an ungrateful pussy. Now I’m a member for life. I hope I live long enough to regret staying."

There is so much great writing in this venemous paragraph, that I'm going to take the rest of the day off. That's how fortunate I feel to have read it. I don't even mind that the writer has me blocked here on DMs. It's a small price to pay for glory.

[Bruce Katona]

" Now I'm a member for life.  I hope I live long enough to regret staying"


JK: What a classic JK'ism!!


Much akin to a quote my golfing friend, who was general counsel @ our real estate development firm once espoused:

"Bruce: As general counsel here, any of the law firms we do business with will send me all of the golf balls I want, provided they have the firm logo on it.  I have an infinite supply of golf balls that my game tests the limits thereof."


Another classic.

[Peter Sayegh]

They're the same as not "highly ranked courses."

[jeffwarne]

  One really bad hole on a course is far more destructive than the benefit derived from one extraordinarily good hole.

I think I disagree on this one.
There are some courses that have a limited amount of extraordinary land or interesting natural features, but some are my favorites.
Of course there are many courses that were once nine holes that used the best land, and selfishly I might prefer they had stayed 9 holes, but I understand the economy of scale an 18 holer(holds twice as many people) might provide.(hard to hire 1/2 a superintendant, 1/2 a pro, etc.)


But when a hole is "extraordinary" or better yet several are extraordinary, and many others are good, I have zero issues with a really bad hole, and certainly zero isiues with several to even many ordinary holes, as long as they show me some extraordinary ones. Dunganaghy, Gweedore, Carradale, Pacific Grove, Porthmadog,Otway even Cruit come to mind-some very poor holes, but oh the highs.


!8 decent-good holes would not lead me to seek out a course, several extraodinary holes definitely will, and if that really bad hole keeps the course off the radar of the critics and the masses, even better.


That's why I always found the CG very helpful-it wasn't the number assigned, it was the commentary.
there were many modern 6's who didn't dare build a really bad hole, but Tom's commentary steered me to many more 3-5's with a few real highs than it did 6's full of no glaring mistakes.


I'm very OK if my hot girlfriend has a few ugly friends.

[Andrew Harvie]

Generally, what I learn at the great golf courses is how often the "rules" of golf architecture are broken. I just got back from a Cypress Point trip and that golf course is anything but normal: four par 5's in the first ten holes and none after that (including back-to-back par 5's and two drivable par 4's in that first ten!), and back-to-back par 3's on the back nine. The exclimation mark is the wonky 18th, which, for the record, I liked, but I doubt anyone would say CPC hardly follows the traditional rules Mackenzie or any golden age architect wrote about.


The same goes for Shinnecock Hills, with its very unusual strategies related to the green complexes and how often, you're hitting to the OUTSIDE of the dogleg to gain the advantage. Sure, it's longer in, but when I played, you couldn't hold the green from the wrong angle because they sloped so hard away from that line of play. This is lots of Flynn courses... I find his architectural unusual in contrast to the Golden Age writings. Merion, Crystal Downs, Pebble, all of them... they all break the conventional teachings in writing.


Even in Canada, Stanley Thompson wrote about how he thinks golf is best served when the routing returns after 9 holes.... but Capilano, Banff, Jasper, St. George's (it was supposed to originally but point still stands) and Highlands Links don't return after nine... that's his famous five designs, and comfortably his best.


Good golf architecture, at least through my eyes and in my travels, generally breaks the "norm" or the rule of thumb, often set out by the architects themselves!

[John Kirk]

2.  One really bad hole on a course is far more destructive than the benefit derived from one extraordinarily good hole.

Just wanted to make sure this excellent observation wasn’t a thread killer, as you are so skilled at doing. I’ve been a long time member at an ex-tour course that has such an abhorrent first hole that it has kept me away for the last decade. I’ve built all their infrastructure so when I attempted to resign the chairmen called me an ungrateful pussy. Now I’m a member for life. I hope I live long enough to regret staying.

We used to make fun of thread killing, but in the past few years I've contributed to some threads that died unexpectedly.  Sometimes you're a Debbie Downer, and sometimes you make the definitive summation, drop the mic and walk away satisfied. 


I believe JohnVB invited me to join in 2004, almost 20 years ago.  There should be some sort of 25 year club for the old timers.  During that time, the golf course architecture business changed dramatically for the better.

[John Kirk]

  One really bad hole on a course is far more destructive than the benefit derived from one extraordinarily good hole.

I think I disagree on this one.
There are some courses that have a limited amount of extraordinary land or interesting natural features, but some are my favorites.
Of course there are many courses that were once nine holes that used the best land, and selfishly I might prefer they had stayed 9 holes, but I understand the economy of scale an 18 holer(holds twice as many people) might provide.(hard to hire 1/2 a superintendant, 1/2 a pro, etc.)


But when a hole is "extraordinary" or better yet several are extraordinary, and many others are good, I have zero issues with a really bad hole, and certainly zero isiues with several to even many ordinary holes, as long as they show me some extraordinary ones. Dunganaghy, Gweedore, Carradale, Pacific Grove, Porthmadog,Otway even Cruit come to mind-some very poor holes, but oh the highs.


!8 decent-good holes would not lead me to seek out a course, several extraodinary holes definitely will, and if that really bad hole keeps the course off the radar of the critics and the masses, even better.


That's why I always found the CG very helpful-it wasn't the number assigned, it was the commentary.
there were many modern 6's who didn't dare build a really bad hole, but Tom's commentary steered me to many more 3-5's with a few real highs than it did 6's full of no glaring mistakes.


I'm very OK if my hot girlfriend has a few ugly friends.

I appreciate your well reasoned dissent.  I have an irreverent but clever response:

Bad golf holes are thread killers.

We're having fun.  The rhythm of the play, the intrigue of the shots...it's all there.  All of a sudden, there's a weird hole that many people don't like.  Negative thoughts re-enter the conversation.

It might be a good subject to discuss what constitutes a bad hole sometime, but the group is more careful these days to avoid openly identifying subjects for criticism.  Typical complaints are too narrow, too wide, or a mandatory layup leaving a long second shot.  I also think that the "2 or 20" type golf hole can be a problem, the one hole that can wreck a total score.

My complaint about Doak 5/6 type courses will usually be a golf hole that looks OK but plays funny.  Maybe an uphill approach to a green where it looks obvious how the green is tilted and you play a shot that you believe will leave you below the hole, but you get up there and have left yourself some weird difficult putt.  That's happened to me a few times.

It seems so easy to make a decent golf hole.  A small amount of basic strategy will do.
   

[Matt Schoolfield]

I've played only a few "highly ranked" courses: TOC, Bethpage Black, Pasatiempo... and a few others I'd assumed would be on them, but aren't. I think, mostly, I've learned that I see really great courses fit into different genres.

The Old Course was a dream to play, no complaints. A strategic gem that leaves a lot to the wind and a bit of luck. I had just as much if not more fun on the New Course, yet I've never seen it come up on these lists.

Bethpage Black I don't like, but I certainly respect it. It's a type of golf-as-a-test course when I just want to have fun. I started laughing when the carry to reach the fairway on #5 was effectively a full driver for me to the bailout zone left. I get it, people want hit-it-long-and-straight courses, but they aren't for me. I'd throw Harding in this bucket as an off-list course in that genre.

Pasatiempo is probably the most dramatic course of the three that I've played, and I only found myself a mildly disinterested on three holes (9, 13, and 17), but more than that, I found many of the holes exciting, but overwhelming (3, 5, 10, 11, 18). That isn't to say these were bad holes, just... very hit-and-hope, because anything that misses is in deep trouble. That's drama, but it's not the same type of strategic nuance that TOC brings.
I'll likely continue to thumb my nose these lists, but I do think that the courses in them have helped me better appreciate when a course is trying to do something specific.

[jeffwarne]

 

My complaint about Doak 5/6 type courses will usually be a golf hole that looks OK but plays funny.  Maybe an uphill approach to a green where it looks obvious how the green is tilted and you play a shot that you believe will leave you below the hole, but you get up there and have left yourself some weird difficult putt.  That's happened to me a few times.

It seems so easy to make a decent golf hole.  A small amount of basic strategy will do.
 

I guess I play for discovering the highs  rather than dwelling on the lows.
I can't even imagine being disappointed with a course that contains several "extraordinary" holes, merely because a shot on a first time play yields a different result than zi initially anticipated.
I'm not even sure that's a "bad" hole just because it appeared "obvious" what the play was  but turned out that semi blind play left you a weird difficult putt.
But for arguments sake Ilet's say it's a bad hole.
It just wouldn't ruin my day if accompanied by a couple of  extraordinary holes--especially if the limited best land produced the extraordinary holes and the poor land produced the weaker ones.
To me,a bad course is one with no highs. that took no chances all for fear of having a severe  weird or even unfair hole that the punters will decry..
Ultra fast greens that have been castrated and dumbed down to acvomodate their newfound speed  are the poster children for this.


Anyway on topic in 2023 Ullapool was the poster child for a course I went right back to the first tee for a repeat crack at it's 2-3 extraordinary holes ,despite having several clunkers in its 9 holes.

[Mike Hendren]

This quote from my friend John Kirk is profound:
“It seems so easy to make a decent golf hole.  A small amount of basic strategy will do.”


My corollary is this:  There’s no justification for building a bad golf hole.


Yet there are thousands of bad holes on the planet. 
 

[Matt Schoolfield]

This quote from my friend John Kirk is profound:
“It seems so easy to make a decent golf hole.  A small amount of basic strategy will do.”


My corollary is this:  There’s no justification for building a bad golf hole.


Yet there are thousands of bad holes on the planet.

Yes, given zero constraints. Limited money, land, and the players’ equipment developing beyond existing design can get in the way of perfectly good, sensible architecture.

[cary lichtenstein]

I've played the top 100 in Golf Digest's 2005 and 75 of the top 100 in Golf Magazine.


I was a low single digit player.


There is such a variety of top 100 courses, vast differences, ones I like and others I thought were vastly overrated.


Plus, I think being a single digit influenced my opinions. I also think the subtilities of some courses are way over my head.


I've always been more influenced by eye candy, subtilities never handicapped by game.


I think the architects should be on one panel, that would be interesting.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I think the architects should be on one panel, that would be interesting.

https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/architects-choice/10/

Be interesting to see an update (yes I know I said these things are worthless!).

[cary lichtenstein]

Thanks for posting this, I didn't know it existed. It addressed some of my same thoughts about courses that are too highly ranked because of whatever

[Ed Brzezowski]

I think I have learned to appreciate some of the hard work from some architects. How they worked to get it right, not take the easier route but to do what is enduring. Same for supers who work on these courses. It's a great combo.

[George Pazin]

I've played mostly lousy, or at least not highly ranked, courses for my entire 30 years of playing golf.


The handful of highly ranked courses I've played ask different questions on every shot - where do I want to land this? How much run do I expect? Do I need to come in high or low? Do I need to avoid one place above all other factors? Stuff like that.


The basic courses mostly just ask, what's my yardage? You hit the same shots - or at least try to - you just vary your carry. There aren't favored sides (though there generally are areas you obviously want to avoid).


I call the three variations black and white golf, grayscale golf, and full color golf.


And yes, Oakmont has more color than Joseph's dreamcoat...

[Dan_Callahan]

While it's obvious that most highly-ranked courses in the US are extremely private, what I learned when I played a number of them is that a hypothesis I held long ago — that exclusivity was a major factor in why they are held in such high regard — isn't actually the case. Shinnecock and NGLA and Cypress are objectively great courses, and I think that holds true as you go down the list.


I also learned that if you are just an average dude who wants to play highly ranked courses and don't want to sit around waiting for an invite, you ought to head over to the UK and Ireland.

[Tim Gavrich]

What I've learned from playing highly-ranked golf courses is that the majority of them are overrated, and that there are legions of $50 golf courses that are twice as good as many $250+ courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()