Tillinghast's par fives - the good the bad the ugly

[TEPaul]

Tyler;

When I said this above;

"(this definitely was Crump's concept and he said so in no uncertain terms)."

I didn't mean to say this was a concept Crump invented just that the true "three shotter" par 5 was what Crump wanted on both his PVGC par 5s and he said so a number of times.

Tillinghast seems to have taken the credit for HHA on PVGC's #7 and I'd say he surely deserves that credit as I've never seen anyone deny him that credit and certainly not Crump. He apparently was a fine friend of Crump's and spent a good deal of time at PVGC on architectural matters.

In Tillinghast's "TheThree Shotter" chapter in "The Course Beautiful" he's either describing PVGC's #7 exactly or a concept of his that came to be PVGC's #7, most likely the former.

The dimensions of the lengths described in his chapter compared to PVGC are exact. HHA is 100 yards in length and the far end of HHA is 400 yards from the tee, as Tillinghast described in his chapter.

But the difference to Tillinghast (from his chapter) of a true "Three shotter" and the type of long three shot hole he didn't like is all about the green design as you can see in that chapter.

Crump was apparently unsure of what exactly to do with #15 PVGC (although it was routed) and how to make it different enough from #7.

Not many seem to realize this but Crump had additional plans for #7 that he didn't have the chance to complete!

[mark chalfant]

When Ran originated this post he suggested that we evaluate  A.W. Tillinghast  ,but also compare his par five "track record "
to that of other architects.   Newport, Ridgewood , Winged Foot East, and Five Farms are
pretty solid.  What architects, living or dead, consistently did better than Tillinghast in this department ?


  Please back up your answer with a few details.

 

[Andrew Carr]

I said I was going to start a new post, but these seems like the perfect one to bump, despite me seemingly disagreeing with most of what was said before me on the topic.


Having seen the below Tillinghast courses, my takeaway is that he consistently built better par 5s, in my opinion, than any other architect I've played.  I understand his reliance on the Great Hazard on the most memorable of those holes is very likely the simple explanation as to why they are so compelling, but is it possibly more than that?  If not, why do we not see more Great Hazards on par 5s?

[/size]San Francisco Golf Club Baltimore Country Club Sands Point Golf Club Ridgewood Country Club Philadelphia Cricket Club Somerset Hills Country Club Southward Ho Country Club Baltustrol Golf Club (Lower Course) Bethpage Black[/color]
[/size]Newport Country Club[/color]
[/size]Quaker Ridge Golf Club[/color]
[/size]Fenway Golf Club[/color]
[/size]North Hempstead Country Club[/color]
[/size]Belmont Golf Course (VA)[/color]
[/size]Paramount Country Club[/color]
[/size]Brackenridge Park Golf Course[/color]

  When Ran originated this post he suggested that we

evaluate  AWT  ,but also   compare his par five "track record "

to that of  other architects.

Newport, Ridgewood, Baltusrol, SFGC, and Five Farms are
pretty  solid.

What architects, living or dead, consistently did as well or

better than  Tillinghast in this  department ?


  Please back up your answer with a few details.

  Thanks.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Those GCAer's who believe that Top 100 lists are useless or even perhaps evil in some way seem to have missed the boat with this question.  While what I am about to say was not nearly as true when Hannigan wrote that passage (which I think was 1974 when Open was at WF-W, Am at Ridgewood and Girl's Jr at Brooklawn)..how about the following question regarding ratings:


If ratings are to measure the greatness of architects, how does one deal with situation caused by outside forces like technology which can help golfers hit the ball as much as 30% further than 50 years ago (250 yds vs 325 yards).  Should architects in the 1920's thru 1960's have been expected to design courses with sufficient acreage required to add say 1000 yards to a course's length?  And what golf course owner or club Board of Governors would propose or agree with that? 


If that situation makes it difficult to do such an evaluation...how do we evaluate Tillie's par 5's some 100 years after they were designed and built?


Ålso, if ratings are a measure of the golf course...then I believe such factors should be considered (and same would hold true regarding "conditioning/maintenance").


Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

Having seen the below Tillinghast courses, my takeaway is that he consistently built better par 5s, in my opinion, than any other architect I've played.  I understand his reliance on the Great Hazard on the most memorable of those holes is very likely the simple explanation as to why they are so compelling, but is it possibly more than that?  If not, why do we not see more Great Hazards on par 5s?

  When Ran originated this post he suggested that we

evaluate  AWT  ,but also   compare his par five "track record "

to that of  other architects.

Newport, Ridgewood, Baltusrol, SFGC, and Five Farms are
pretty  solid.

What architects, living or dead, consistently did as well or

better than  Tillinghast in this  department ?


  Please back up your answer with a few details.

  Thanks.

Andrew:


You should consider that when Hannigan wrote his piece, a lot of those "great hazards" you admire were shadows of their former selves, or not there at all anymore.  Cross hazards of that kind were antithetical to the prevailing ideas of golf course design in the 1950s through 1970s; frankly, so was the idea of the three-shot par-5, as the combination of Robert Trent Jones and Augusta National convinced everyone that a true three-shot hole was not a great hole.


I think the real answer to Mark's question is that par-5 holes are hard to build and nobody is especially great at them, although I have admired a lot of par-5 holes that Coore and Crenshaw have come up with, and I believe MacKenzie was very good at the short par-5. 

[Andrew Carr]

I completely agree and maybe bumping this thread wasn't my brightest idea, but I am amazed and how many quality par 5s Mr. Tillinghast built and how well they hold up. To Mr. Rudovsky's point, maybe all the credit for the holes staying relevant doesn't belong with Mr. Tillinghast, but with the club, maintenance, etc.


I guess the root of my question is about the usage of Great Hazards and how they, in my opinion, seem to be an effective answer to making a par 5 interesting.  Is it just the Great Hazard that makes the 6th & 14th at Baltimore CC East, the 7th at Philadelphia Cricket Club Wissahickon, the 4th at Ridgewood CC West, to name a few, great?  Or do those holes have some other intangible that makes them interesting?


If it is just the Great Hazard...why do we not see more of them used in current design?

Having seen the below Tillinghast courses, my takeaway is that he consistently built better par 5s, in my opinion, than any other architect I've played.  I understand his reliance on the Great Hazard on the most memorable of those holes is very likely the simple explanation as to why they are so compelling, but is it possibly more than that?  If not, why do we not see more Great Hazards on par 5s?

  When Ran originated this post he suggested that we

evaluate  AWT  ,but also   compare his par five "track record "

to that of  other architects.

Newport, Ridgewood, Baltusrol, SFGC, and Five Farms are
pretty  solid.

What architects, living or dead, consistently did as well or

better than  Tillinghast in this  department ?


  Please back up your answer with a few details.

  Thanks.

Andrew:


You should consider that when Hannigan wrote his piece, a lot of those "great hazards" you admire were shadows of their former selves, or not there at all anymore.  Cross hazards of that kind were antithetical to the prevailing ideas of golf course design in the 1950s through 1970s; frankly, so was the idea of the three-shot par-5, as the combination of Robert Trent Jones and Augusta National convinced everyone that a true three-shot hole was not a great hole.


I think the real answer to Mark's question is that par-5 holes are hard to build and nobody is especially great at them, although I have admired a lot of par-5 holes that Coore and Crenshaw have come up with, and I believe MacKenzie was very good at the short par-5.

[mike_malone]

Not a huge fan of the great hazard because it comes as a forced carry on the second shot and goes totally across the fairway. I realize that some are angled.


 Give me the well placed bunker in the layup area which you must take on. I think of Lehigh 6, Philly CC 3 and 12, and marvelously Huntingdon Valley 15.


Even 7 at Pine Valley isn’t as great as the hill on 15 as a hazard.


I do like the hazard at Quaker Ridge so I don’t come off as a hater.

[Tom_Doak]

the Great Hazard...why do we not see more of them used in current design?

You don't see the Great Hazard much anymore because most architects, and especially Bill Coore and I, both had so much respect for Alice Dye, who pointed out that second-shot forced carries are torture for the average woman golfer.

Most of the architects in the ASGCA also know that Mrs. Dye will be haunting them if they forget her advice.


By the same token, while it's an effective and memorable hazard for the average-to-good male golfer of a prestigious club, it's almost completely irrelevant for scratch players and better, unless they drive into a horrible lie in the rough.

Plus, it's much easier to RESTORE a hazard that Tillinghast built [even if it's grossly unfair to poor players] than it is to take the heat for designing it yourself.

[MCirba]

Plus, it's much easier to RESTORE a hazard that Tillinghast built [even if it's grossly unfair to poor players] than it is to take the heat for designing it yourself.

Tom,


Not to divert too much from the subject at hand but I wonder if that comment isn't universally  true?   I'm thinking of the wild 12th at Garden City, for instance.   Not sure anyone would build that today but restoring it as it was...aye, there's the rub!


There was a similar type of green at Cobb's Creek (the original 16th, which in recent years played as the 10th, albeit neutered) that Geoff Walsh dubbed "the Tie Fighter" for its similarity to the spaceship in the movies that seems a hoot, and was quite the one-off there from inception, much like 12 at GCGC.   In fact, some of us have speculated that it may have been the Walter Travis contribution as he was hanging around in 1915, likely with Crump as they were working on the reversible course for PV.   


In any case, we'd love to see Gil and Jim "restore" the original as there is no way in hell they'd build that for a new client today!      And yes, those are mounds on each side of the green and judging by their shadows compared to the size of the shadows of those putting, they had to be fairly gargantuan.

[Tom_Doak]

Plus, it's much easier to RESTORE a hazard that Tillinghast built [even if it's grossly unfair to poor players] than it is to take the heat for designing it yourself.

Tom,

Not to divert too much from the subject at hand but I wonder if that comment isn't universally  true?   I'm thinking of the wild 12th at Garden City, for instance.   Not sure anyone would build that today but restoring it as it was...aye, there's the rub!

There was a similar type of green at Cobb's Creek (the original 16th, which in recent years played as the 10th, albeit neutered) that Geoff Walsh dubbed "the Tie Fighter" for its similarity to the spaceship in the movies that seems a hoot, and was quite the one-off there from inception, much like 12 at GCGC.   In fact, some of us have speculated that it may have been the Walter Travis contribution as he was hanging around in 1915, likely with Crump as they were working on the reversible course for PV.   


In any case, we'd love to see Gil and Jim "restore" the original as there is no way in hell they'd built that for an original client today! 

Hi Mike:


Not sure I would build the hole you pictured myself!


But I am not afraid to build something wild on occasion.  It's more often the clients who are afraid of building anything that's truly different.  The higher you get on the ladder of success in this business, the more the clients fear that they have something to lose.


And even if they trust us, something truly original is less appealing to them, because it wasn't their idea.


I do wish I had a client who would just turn me loose and have no expectations of being in any top 100 list.  I've got about ten projects on the books and I can't think of one who would really just let me run wild.

[MCirba]

Tom,.


If I only had the money (hint hint to billionaires out there), and the right piece of land I would love to turn you loose to create your wildest dreams.


Art forms don't progress without bold, imaginative, and even revolutionary steps in new directions. 

[Andrew Carr]

This makes the world of sense and is a shining example of how great this site is.  I hadn't thought of it like that.


The recently restored Great Hazard at Southward Ho's 11th has gone over just like you are saying.  It's not as big of a factor for the better players, but the average to weak struggle with it.  Visually, it's amazing and I certainly wouldn't argue to get rid of it, but I get why we don't see too many new ones.  I can think of the one you did at Streamsong Blue 17 and C&C's 13th at Old Sandwich and Mr. Hanse's 15th at Boston Golf Club.  To your point they are rare in that I can name them, but are diagonal hazards a better compromise to not disproportionately the lesser skilled player or are there better ways to make par 5s interesting?

the Great Hazard...why do we not see more of them used in current design?

You don't see the Great Hazard much anymore because most architects, and especially Bill Coore and I, both had so much respect for Alice Dye, who pointed out that second-shot forced carries are torture for the average woman golfer.

Most of the architects in the ASGCA also know that Mrs. Dye will be haunting them if they forget her advice.


By the same token, while it's an effective and memorable hazard for the average-to-good male golfer of a prestigious club, it's almost completely irrelevant for scratch players and better, unless they drive into a horrible lie in the rough.

Plus, it's much easier to RESTORE a hazard that Tillinghast built [even if it's grossly unfair to poor players] than it is to take the heat for designing it yourself.

[Phil Young]

Andrew, the reason the average to weak players have a problem trying to clear the Hell's Half-Acre hazard at Southward Ho, and that is its proper name as there are several different types of "great hazards" that Tilly used, is a very simple one and is the same reason that the average to weak players have difficulty at all of the...they are hitting from the wrong tees.


At Southward Ho, from the Blue (championship) tees to 10 yards short of the hazard is @307 yards. From the green tee's it is 297. From the whit tees it is 287. from the forward gold tees, it is 227 yards from there. The length of the carry over the hazard from that spot to about 10 yards past it is about 100 yards. Even if you play from the back blue tees and your hit a drive of 250 yards, to carry the hazard requires a shot of approximately 165 - 170 yards.


The lesser player, and even some of the good ones, have a tendency to try and kill a drive and will often end up in the rough as a result. Instead of a lay-up in the fairway short of the hazard from the rough, often they will try and carry it, which will most likely result in a worse situation.


Play to your skill level and a par or bogey can be made by the average to weak player.  It is the same situation that players find themselves in regardless of which HHA they play.


I happen to be a big fan of SoHoCC.

[Andrew Carr]

Phil, I totally agree with you that the wrong tee crowd muddles the works of such a cool feature.


I feel I owe you an apologize for simply referring to it as the Great Hazard as you've already explained to me directly that SoHo's is a Hell's Half Acre.  It won't happen again!


I hope my message wasn't taken as a criticism because I really enjoyed not only the HHA but the entirety of the course and cannot wait until the 9th green is restored to it's proper Little Tilly location.  There was no timeframe discussed for that work last time I was on property, but it is on the roadmap, which will be great!

Andrew, the reason the average to weak players have a problem trying to clear the Hell's Half-Acre hazard at Southward Ho, and that is its proper name as there are several different types of "great hazards" that Tilly used, is a very simple one and is the same reason that the average to weak players have difficulty at all of the...they are hitting from the wrong tees.


At Southward Ho, from the Blue (championship) tees to 10 yards short of the hazard is @307 yards. From the green tee's it is 297. From the whit tees it is 287. from the forward gold tees, it is 227 yards from there. The length of the carry over the hazard from that spot to about 10 yards past it is about 100 yards. Even if you play from the back blue tees and your hit a drive of 250 yards, to carry the hazard requires a shot of approximately 165 - 170 yards.


The lesser player, and even some of the good ones, have a tendency to try and kill a drive and will often end up in the rough as a result. Instead of a lay-up in the fairway short of the hazard from the rough, often they will try and carry it, which will most likely result in a worse situation.


Play to your skill level and a par or bogey can be made by the average to weak player.  It is the same situation that players find themselves in regardless of which HHA they play.


I happen to be a big fan of SoHoCC.

[Jim Hoak]

Keith Foster built what I think is a good Par-5, Great Hazard hole at #15 at the Brook Hollow in Dallas redo.  But we did need to move the front tee up 30-50 yards to allow shorter hitters to clear the Hazard on their second shot.  Everyone's now happy.

[Andrew Carr]

There and Winged Foot are the only Tilly's on the Cricket Club's wall that I haven't seen yet.  Timing keeps not working at Winged Foot, but I'll figure that out.  I need to cash in on that invite to Brook Hollow soon.  Those pictures of what Keith Foster did there, look incredible.


I guess this question is for Mr. Young, but is open to everyone: besides Southward Ho and the 11 courses on the Cricket Club's wall, what are the most important Tillinghast designs that one should seek out to better understand his work?  Since this is a thread on Tillinghast's par fives, I kept this question on the thread as clearly the 15th at Brook Hollow is something that needs to be seen.

Keith Foster built what I think is a good Par-5, Great Hazard hole at #15 at the Brook Hollow in Dallas redo.  But we did need to move the front tee up 30-50 yards to allow shorter hitters to clear the Hazard on their second shot.  Everyone's now happy.

[Adam_Messix]

This has been a fun thread, particularly seeing posts from some of the great posters from the past. 


To Tom Doak's post, I appreciate Alice Dye's thoughts regarding difficulty for ladies and the Great Hazard.  The flip side of it is remembering the thoughts of Old Tom Morris regarding golf, difficulty and fun. 


In terms of Tillinghast, his best par 5s almost entirely have The Great Hazard.  There are few others that I really liked, particularly 4 at Winged Foot East, 18 at Baltusrol Lower, 18 at San Francisco, and the opener at Quaker Ridge. 


There is so much genius at Pine Valley but keep this in mind regarding the two long holes.  The 7th hole gets progressively easier with each shot with an incredibly difficult tee shot, a really difficult second, a pretty difficult third, and a pretty sedate green.  The 15th becomes more difficult.  The tee shot is incredibly wild, that get progressively narrower on the second, a difficult uphill approach, and an incredibly difficult green and surrounds. 


The one thing that I admire about Pine Valley is, in the opposite tact to Alice Dye, Crump was not afraid to make it difficult.

[Jim Hoak]

Keep in mind as you think of Tilly's Great Hazards that a ball in them is usually not unplayable--only more difficult.  It is called a Hazard, but it is not water or the like.
The more I have played PV#7, for example, the more I have concluded that I am better intentionally hitting into the Great Hazard on my second shot.  As I have aged and lost distance, I can't hit the drive far enough (even from shorter tees) to get across the Great Hazard on my second shot.  If I lay my second shot up short of the GH, I can't get my 3rd shot onto the Green.  So I have concluded that the play for me is to hit into the GH on purpose with my second shot.  I have never been totally unplayable, so I can hit my third shot from the GH up close to the Green, usually closer than I would have been by laying up on my second.  And then I have an easier fourth shot to try to get up and down for par.
Maybe not for everyone, but the best play for me.

[Tom_Doak]

Keep in mind as you think of Tilly's Great Hazards that a ball in them is usually not unplayable--only more difficult.  It is called a Hazard, but it is not water or the like.

Jim:


That's a fair point, and you are a gamer for making the tactical decision to play into the hazard.  But I doubt your wife would want to do that; that's one reason she has probably never played Pine Valley.

[Mark McKeever]

Keep in mind as you think of Tilly's Great Hazards that a ball in them is usually not unplayable--only more difficult.  It is called a Hazard, but it is not water or the like.
The more I have played PV#7, for example, the more I have concluded that I am better intentionally hitting into the Great Hazard on my second shot.  As I have aged and lost distance, I can't hit the drive far enough (even from shorter tees) to get across the Great Hazard on my second shot.  If I lay my second shot up short of the GH, I can't get my 3rd shot onto the Green.  So I have concluded that the play for me is to hit into the GH on purpose with my second shot.  I have never been totally unplayable, so I can hit my third shot from the GH up close to the Green, usually closer than I would have been by laying up on my second.  And then I have an easier fourth shot to try to get up and down for par.
Maybe not for everyone, but the best play for me.

Thats an excellent third shot to get close to the green from the great hazard! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I remember a similar debate here not long after I started participating, probably circa before 2000.


I was pretty roundly chastised for arguing against the greatness of the big cross hazard, believing that long, angled cross hazards provided a more nuanced challenge (i.e., bite off what you can chew, but leave a safe route.)  At least Tommy N credited me with being willing to stand up for my opinion......


PS, I still don't think the Great Hazard was Tilly's best idea, even as I admire his work in general.

[Andrew Carr]

I agree a Bottle-like bunker arrangement is much more democratic, while still having the option for heroics that are involved in a Hell's Half Acre Great Hazard.


Having been fortunate to play the majority of Tillinghast's most notable work this year, the sheer volume of compelling par 5 holes has me wondering about it and the best answer I've come up with is the Great Hazard.  I cannot think of a single C.B. Macdonald par 5 that I would consider in the same league at Baltimore Country Club's 6th hole.  The best Mackenzie par 5 I've seen is the 5th at Cypress Point and it has not only what I would refer to as a modified Great Hazard in that it does not go clear across the fairway but also an uphill stretch to the green.


Besides the bunkering in the layup area and the narrowing uphill of Pine Valley's 15th, what other features are best employed to make a great par 5?


So your response begs the follow-up question...what was Mr. Tillinghast's best idea, in your opinion?

I remember a similar debate here not long after I started participating, probably circa before 2000.


I was pretty roundly chastised for arguing against the greatness of the big cross hazard, believing that long, angled cross hazards provided a more nuanced challenge (i.e., bite off what you can chew, but leave a safe route.)  At least Tommy N credited me with being willing to stand up for my opinion......


PS, I still don't think the Great Hazard was Tilly's best idea, even as I admire his work in general.

[mike_malone]

Andrew,
 Doglegs are used as another idea to make a good par five. They can increase the second shot by up to 40 yards by hitting away from the dogleg. Some classic designers made some sharp doglegs where you can be totally blocked out for the second shot behind trees. Today we don’t like that idea but I think it is fair.

[Jeff Schley]

Andrew,
 Doglegs are used as another idea to make a good par five. They can increase the second shot by up to 40 yards by hitting away from the dogleg. Some classic designers made some sharp doglegs where you can be totally blocked out for the second shot behind trees. Today we don’t like that idea but I think it is fair.

I agree much agree with this Mike for variety.  ANGC 13/15 are probably the most famous par 5's to most golfers as they have been seen on TV more than any others and have decided many Masters tournaments. Both those are risk reward 2nd shots with water hazards in the front of the green needing to be carried. The two nuances for 13 are the clubs insistence on planting big pines at the edge of the dogleg so drives that aren't worked right to left end up in the pines. Also the sloped fairway, which adds a layer of execution for the 2nd shot where a ball above your feet will naturally hook.
15 requires avoiding the pines on the left off the tee or you have to play a huge hook around the trees, or layup. The shaved areas around the green make for great drama, as 2nd shots long can even make the water on 16, or at best a tough chip to a downward sloping green.  The front part of the green claims those who spin their 3rd shot wedges just a bit too much.
In both cases I can't see faults in either for championship golf.

[Phil Young]

Mike and Jeff, in answer to Andrew's question regarding par-five holes, "What was Mr. Tillinghast's best idea, in your opinion?," the answer that the two of you gave was basically the same, "doglegs." Although I agree in concept, I think that one needs to take it a step further than that as dogleg holes had been built and used to make holes of different pars and lengths challenging and dramatic before Tilly came along, so they weren't his idea. Now, the "Double Dogleg" was, and  greatly magnifies the challenge of the fairway leading from the tee to the green complex in difficulty, choice of how to play it and the beauty of the hole.

Consider how Tilly described the changes he recommended be made to the 7th hole at Pine Valley: "As it was originally planned is shown by Fig. 1. [This in reference to a sketch he made of the hole prior to the recommended changes showing the hole as basically straight from tee to green.] It is being played so at present, and a mighty fine hole it is, too. None but the long hitter can get within striking distance of the green after his second shot, and both the drive and the second shot must be hit. An enormous area of sand extends across the course, beginning, I should say, about 325 yards from the teeing ground. The hazard must be close to 100 yards across. If it is not carried, the green is beyond range. But good as it is, some variations from the present lines will make it a far greater problem, and the change is to be made.

"Along the right of the fairway extends a wood, and cuts will be made for this new teeing ground and for the second shot. After the change the tee-shot must be played more to the left than at present, the second shot will be forced to the right, and naturally the green will open up to an approach from that side. A comparison of the two sketches reveals a marked improvement with not an alarming amount of work in sight. Already the new green has been constructed [The sketch of the new hole clearly shows the two dog-legs, left to right and then right to left.] 

"It would be well for those green committees, who are prone to regard with complacency holes which are satisfying, to bear in mind that no hole is perfect. A twist here and there may work wonders. [Here again is another great idea of Tilly, Twisting the fairways, that in this case creates a double dog-leg par five.]"