[Dan Kelly]

Tom Doak writes to Peter Pallotta, in the thread titled "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot":

"This topic of 'breather holes' has come up several times of late.  I think it deserves its own thread, although it's too late for me to start it tonight.  I will have somewhat different things to say about it than you think -- the result of working not in a vacuum but on real pieces of ground."

It's a new day! And it's early! (At least it is here.)

What have you to say, Tom (et al.), about "breather holes"?

[TEPaul]

I know most every other golf analyst on here would probably disagree but I'd like to see a course or a few that were basically nothing but "breather" holes!   

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom - You need to go play FDR!

[Adam Clayman]

I'd assume designers don't make them on purpose. They are interpreted as such after the fact. Serendipity which distinguishes between collections of holes and a great course.

[Phil McDade]

Dan:

Maybe this has a tie-in to the relentless thread.....

I like "breather holes;" more specifically, I like change-of-pace holes -- ones that represent a change in the overall strategy employed at a course. For instance, I've always liked courses that require a puckered tee shot into a narrow corridor after several fairways that are wide and relatively accomodating to not-perfectly straight tee shots.

[Dan Herrmann]

I too like breather holes.

We have one at #7 at our course.   It's a very good hole on its own, but each course has to have an easiest par 4.

It comes at a perfect time - just after the first 1/3 of the round.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

In theatre the playwright creates pacing which brings the audience to a peak brings them back down and then brings everyone to a final climax of the drama.  Actually it sounds a lot like sex. 

The golf course and its design should do the same.  One reason I think some of us react to Fazio is that he often creates 18 separate clamactic/dramatic scenes without any rest in between.  My home course, while humble, dose this very well with an easy and reassuring beginning and then several rises and falls in drama before the last few holes simply grab you by the throat and throw your strong round into the dirt and stomps all over you.  A stunning and dramatic finish.

The Board recently floated the trial balloon that the nines should be reversed, the members reacted pretty aggressively to retaining the present dramatic structure. 

Basically the "breather" hole are essential for the drama of the architecture to reach its full potential, without them we are simply left exhausted and over stimulated. 

[Bradley Anderson]

I have never heard of breather holes, but I have heard of warm-up holes, where the architect starts you out with three holes that are generally not as difficult as the remainder of the course.

I visited Farnklin Hills last week and that first hole looked like a really tough opening hole. I can't recall ever seeing a par four opener that looked more intimidating and really long off the tee.

[Adam Clayman]

Bradley, The concept first struck me while I recalled my feelings when I first played Pebble's 15th.
 After subsequently caddying there, the concept was reenforced to me after watching all caliber of players handle not only that hole but the strong finish.

[Jeff Shelman]

I agree with whoever said change-of-pace.

At my club, some people might say that that Nos. 10 and 11 are kind of breather holes. No. 10 is only about 312 yards, but the green is very difficult in that it runs away from you and from right to left. No. 11 is 350-360 from the back, but the green is quite elevated. You might have 9i or wedge in, but you have to make sure you hit it in the right spot.

Now I probably make more birdies on these two par 4s than any of the other 4s, but there are also times when I make bogey. In some ways, these "breather" holes are kind of pressure filled because if you slip up and make a bogey on one or both, you're in trouble because there is little let up the rest of the way.

[Tom_Doak]

For me this is a subject that's worthy of its own book.

I've said on other threads that I do not enjoy "relentless" architecture.  It's not just that I'm a 10 handicap and I recognize that most people don't enjoy walking up the 18th hole punch-drunk and bloody -- it's that the thing I value most in a golf course is a VARIETY of holes, and if every single hole is "a hard par but an easy bogey", there is not much variety there.

Life is not a series of "tough but fair" challenges, and neither should a golf course be.  There should be some holes where par is a great score -- two-shotters where the stroke average for low-handicappers is more like 4.5 -- and there should also be some holes where a birdie or even an eagle are on offer to the 10-handicapper who hits a couple of excellent shots.  Par fours should have stroke averages from 3.5 right up to 4.5 and everything in between, based not just on their yardage but on differing levels of challenge from tee to green. 

Really taking this philosophy to heart is what allows us to build a golf course that fits the land, instead of trying too hard to modify the land to include certain types of holes.

We don't design in a vacuum, we design on pieces of ground.  A couple of people have asked recently if I deliberately chose to build most of the par-5 holes at Pacific Dunes on the long, flattish plain where holes 3, 12 and 15 are located ... but the truth is just that it was a plain that had to be crossed three times, and that was how far across it was, so we tried to make three differing holes of similar length in that space.  If it had been 400 yards across, we'd just have made three differing par-4's, and tried to find our par-5's somewhere else.

Likewise, where there is occasionally a fairly featureless stretch of ground which has to be crossed in the routing, I may well build a hole which some call a "breather".  I love the fact that good players EXPECT to make birdies on these holes, and because they do so less than 50% of the time, they can be affected psychologically just by making a par -- and particularly if their opponent makes a birdie.  So I may throw in a "weak" hole now and then when the land tells me to ... but it's not because I am deliberately trying to put a "breather" at a certain point in the round.

[Dan Kelly]

Life is not a series of "tough but fair" challenges, and neither should a golf course be.  There should be some holes where par is a great score -- two-shotters where the stroke average for low-handicappers is more like 4.5 -- and there should also be some holes where a birdie or even an eagle are on offer to the 10-handicapper who hits a couple of excellent shots.  Par fours should have stroke averages from 3.5 right up to 4.5 and everything in between, based not just on their yardage but on differing levels of challenge from tee to green. 

Really taking this philosophy to heart is what allows us to build a golf course that fits the land, instead of trying too hard to modify the land to include certain types of holes.

We don't design in a vacuum, we design on pieces of ground.  A couple of people have asked recently if I deliberately chose to build most of the par-5 holes at Pacific Dunes on the long, flattish plain where holes 3, 12 and 15 are located ... but the truth is just that it was a plain that had to be crossed three times, and that was how far across it was, so we tried to make three differing holes of similar length in that space.  If it had been 400 yards across, we'd just have made three differing par-4's, and tried to find our par-5's somewhere else.

This probably deserves a thread (or a book) of its own, too, but I'll ask it here:

Imagine if the land said to you: "There aren't any good par-5s here. There are just a whole bunch of great par-3s and par-4s here."

Has that ever happened? Is any golf-course developer, anywhere, bold enough to let you build exactly the best golf course that you see on the land -- par and total yardage be damned?

[Tom_Doak]

Dan:

I'm sure there are a handful of potential golf developers out there who would let me build a course without par-5's or even without par-3's, if that's what I thought fit the land.  I may have one in Japan right now.

I've had one or two such clients before -- or at least clients who talked in those terms.  The funny thing is, on those occasions, the routing worked out as a more balanced and normal plan.  I guess I must really be a contrarian. 

Most clients are NOT going to be comfortable with a weird mix of holes, and if they aren't comfortable they would never be able to sell it to their customers.

[Phil McDade]

This probably deserves a thread (or a book) of its own, too, but I'll ask it here:

Imagine if the land said to you: "There aren't any good par-5s here. There are just a whole bunch of great par-3s and par-4s here."

Has that ever happened? Is any golf-course developer, anywhere, bold enough to let you build exactly the best golf course that you see on the land -- par and total yardage be damned?
[/quote]

Dan:

I think a long time ago it did, particularly with a few of the Scottish courses I encountered. Shiskine at Blackwaterfoot, on the Isle of Arran, comes immediately to mind, as does Stonehaven near Aberdeen. Both are ultra-quirky (over-the-top clown's-mouth for some) on tiny parcels of land -- Stonehaven is on 60-some acres, Shiskine certainly less. Tee shots crossing other fairways, blind holes, incredibly challenging carries over ravines, punchbowl greens -- essentially a golf course (in the case of Shiskine, one with only 12 holes) built on the land that was available. But golf course development in Scotland back then was totally at odds with how a lot of golf course development occurs today, obviously.

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

Absolutely, some of the old Scottish courses are like that.  The Scots didn't have so many expectations of what a golf course should be like -- they just went with the flow.  And they're still that way, much more accepting of less-than-championship courses than any other golf consumers I've run across.

They're also way too frugal to develop any new courses themselves, or to hire someone like me to build one. 

[Peter Pallotta]

I'd assume designers don't make them on purpose. They are interpreted as such after the fact...

Yes, somewhere along the line (I don't know exactly when) golfers and/or architecture afficiandos/critics started reflecting back on the courses they played and picking out (and picking on) the "easy" or "breather" holes. They had nothing better to do I guess...but what a web of artificiality and expense they engendered. 

Peter

[Jason Topp]

I really like a "breather stretch."  In other words, a series of holes where the player feels like he or she should make up some strokes.  I think it adds some excitement to the round for the good day and relief for a bad day.  The loop is the best example of this.

[John Moore II]

I think 'breather holes' are a great thing to have. In many ways, I feel like Tobacco Road may have 5 or 6 holes that could be classified as a 'breather.' However, those holes can really jump at you if you hit the ball offline. And many times, the hole an average player can see as a breather, the better player can see then as a pressure to score (but that has been said a few times before).

[Sean Leary]

Would you guys consider the middle holes at Merion East a breather stretch?

[JESII]

Anyone care to take a stab at the difference between a "breather hole" and a half-par hole on the short side...you know...340 par 4 or 480 par 5?


Sean,

Not me...but the middle stretch at Pine Valley, maybe...from 6 through 12.

[Sean Leary]

JES,

I might agree with you on that.Interesting thought actually.

[Tim Bert]

I love the breather hole, and I love the breather stretch as well.  I also love the breather hole that follows the hell hole or vice versa.

At my home club, we've got a great 1-2 combo on the front nine.  A tough par 4 that plays 419 from the member tee and 468 from the championship tee followed by a breather par 5 that plays 473 from the member tee and 508 from the championship tee.

The par 4 usually plays into a cross wind that is also slighty hurting.  It also plays slightly uphill.  The par 5 plays parallel in the opposite direction, so the wind is usually helping a bit (and it plays downhill.)  There are days where I may use the same club to approach both greens.

To top things off, both have interesting greens.  The par four has a vertical spine that splits the green left / right down the center.  If you land on the wrong side, it can be a difficult 2-putt.  The par five has two distinct tiers - the front is the upper tier and the back is the lower tier.  When the wind is helping it can be difficult to stop your long approach on the green unless you run it into the bank in front of the green.

These two holes really make par irrelevant.  As a 10 handicap, I'm looking to come away from the pair with a total of 10 strokes.  In the past 2 months (9 tries) I've accomplished this 4 times.  Interestingly enough, in that same stretch I've made three 4s on the par five and only one 4 on the par four.   

[JSlonis]

Anyone care to take a stab at the difference between a "breather hole" and a half-par hole on the short side...you know...340 par 4 or 480 par 5?


Sean,

Not me...but the middle stretch at Pine Valley, maybe...from 6 through 12.

Good topic.

I've made too many high scores on 6-11 at PV to consider that a breather stretch.   I do think #12 is a breather hole.  For me, the only one on the course besides maybe #17.  You need a breather on #12 though, because 13-15 will knock you square on the jaw.

Sean,

I don't think there are any breather holes at Merion.  That shorter middle stretch can get you at any moment.

[John Moore II]

Anyone care to take a stab at the difference between a "breather hole" and a half-par hole on the short side...you know...340 par 4 or 480 par 5?

I would say the difference is how the holes are played and if they actually present the player with a breather. The 17th at Oakmont (never played) doesn't seem to be any kind of breather for anyone, and its only 310ish yards. While for a moderate player trying to make a par, the 18th at Kapalua, even at 675yds, due to wind and the hill, can be a breather.
--A breather need not be a "short" hole, it simply needs to be the type of hole where the player does not have to hit perfect shots in order to make (personal) par.

[Ed Oden]

Does a hole need to be a -half par in order to qualify as a breather hole?  Seems to me its really more a question of relativity to the difficulty of the other holes on the course.  For example, I don't think Shinnecock has any -half par holes.  But I'd still say there are a few comparitive breather holes such as 8 and 13.

Also, in my opinion, the best breather holes are those that have the potential for disaster despite their generally benign nature.  In other words, a par should be a relatively easy proposition if the hole is played conservatively.  But there should still be danger lurking for those that are agressive in search of a birdie.

Ed

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()