[Rob Curtiss]

I was finishing up a round of golf on a local course yesterday and the course finishes with 2 brutal holes and my buddy said to me when we were finished " never playing that course again".

And it made me think

Should'nt the golf designers be designing courses to suite the mid handicap to higher handicap players by designing courses with the hard holes in the middle. It would seem to make sense to make the first hole an easy hole to get a round off to a good start and to also make the last hole or 2 easier so that the player has a good chance to close with a par or better to make them want to play more often.
Who among us has not had a horrible round and had that one great shot or hole and said " I can play this game"

I was thinking of some of best courses I have played and most seem to start or end with a pretty tough hole.
Just some examples:

Pebble -- 18 is tough off the tee box for the mid to high handicap
Pasatiempo -- 1st hole -really narrow and 18 a par three over junk
Oak Hill -east -- the approach on 18 is elevated and if you are short-- ugh
Olympic-Lake -- 18 is a total up hill blind shot - although a short hole
TPC sawgrass -- Tough 17th hole and 18th is Dyeabolical as they say

The course that comes to mind that follows my thought is Bandon dunes.
Fairly easy first hole- pretty wide open and also a nice pretty open par 5 to finish.

A great course that allows me to get a fairly optimistic start and lets me close with a good score to make me want to play again.

In the grand scheme of things, the better we play a course, the better the chance that we will play it again or join the membership.

Like to know if anyone has any other known courses that start and finish relatively player friendly.

[John Percival]

Most of the old classics did not have ranges, so the first two holes were considered 'warm ups'. Some, like WF and Quaker Ridge still don't have ranges. Makes #1 on WF West all the more brutal.
So, yes, like the idea of working the player into the round.

Maybe the best finisher...last 3 @ TOC. 16 w/ its strategic element, 17 with its pucker element and 18 as the definition of easy par.
Actually like the idea of the finisher as a half par, softening the load for the average and pushing the advanced to make birdie and keep pace. In that scenario, like 16 or 17 as a ball buster. Something to balance out the smooth closer.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think.....do what the land dictates and forget rules as over-riding, just create the best hole(s). All this dont play the first hole into the sun, or make it easy is secondary not primary consideration. If two hard holes or two easy holes are consectitive so be it.

[BCowan]

Inverness  1 and 18 are very forgiving for avg golfer.  The course gets criticized for not having a tough enough finishing hole, which i think the routing is most important.  People don't mind a reachable par 5, but criticize a birdie able par 4 finishing hole.

    I think having warm up holes for 1 and 2, and 10 and 11 is nice, put Mackenzie didn't follow that.  different strokes for different folks

[BHoover]

I don't know about the 1st hole being a ball-buster. It's always nice to be able to start out a round with a chance for birdie, and there's something disheartening about starting with a double right off the top.

But I do like the idea of 18 being a ball-buster. Whether you're playing a match or in medal play, I don't think it's wrong to have to struggle for a decent score. A little hard work never hurt anybody. The 18th at Canterbury is a good example of a tough, uphill par 4. Chances are you're going to need to play a solid hybrid or long iron to the green, which is partially crowned. If you make par, you've earned it.

However, at the end of the day, the design should be dictated by the land. if that means easy or difficult holes to start and finish, so be it.

[Mark Steffey]

courses don't want 18 to be a stroke hole.  nobody wants to see a match play game come down to 18 with somebody getting a pop - so you either have a middling hole, or rig the rating to make a hard hole read 8-9-10 instead 

[Jud_T]

Shoreacres comes to mind.  Funnily enough, 1&18 are often maligned here as being nothing special or lacking in difficulty.

[Carl Rogers]

Tom D did something pretty interesting at Beechtree (NLE sadly).  
Hole 16 was a short par 3 uphill ...  easy shot receptive bi-level green.
Hole 17 was a short par 4, not hard once you realize where to aim the semi-blind tee shot.
Hole 18 was a shortish wide open par 5, slightly uphill but a real birdie chance.

I think this was deliberate as holes 8-10, 12-15 were as hard as anyone would want.

At Riverfront, the Hole 1 is extremely deceptive .... wide open drive, but very demanding approach to ne of the smaller greens on the course (no. 3 handicap hole)
Hole 17 is a short par 4 ... the tightest drive on the course, terrain that dissipates the power game & the most tame green on the course
Hole 18 is a half par (5) hole (for the highly skilled, difficult second shot over wetlands for the rest of us particularly when against the wind off of irregular lies) with the largest wildest green on the course

Contrast is the key in these examples

[Jason Thurman]

Should'nt the golf designers be designing courses to suite the mid handicap to higher handicap players by designing courses with the hard holes in the middle. It would seem to make sense to make the first hole an easy hole to get a round off to a good start and to also make the last hole or 2 easier so that the player has a good chance to close with a par or better to make them want to play more often.
Who among us has not had a horrible round and had that one great shot or hole and said " I can play this game"

This paragraph makes me think we should probably just make every hole as easy as possible. I would hate to have a hacker play badly on any course and decide that he's not cut out for golf. The shrinking participation in the game today may just not permit our selfish quest for design interest and shot values. In youth sports today, everybody gets a trophy or a medal just for participation. Golf architects should emulate that system in their designs. Even though Pebble Beach closes with two tough holes for the high handicapper, it's still considered a great course because they give you a bag tag when you walk off 18 so everybody goes home feeling like a winner.

We really should pander to the crowd that is on the verge of quitting the game because of their plethora of bogeys and lack of ability and interest in working to get better. Those are the guys that we all really want to share the course with, as they're the ones most likely to drink to excess and drive a cart into a lake while playing. Stories like that are the only golf stories my wife will even listen to. If those great ambassadors of the game stop playing, my marriage may even suffer.

Have you ever used one of those carts with a GPS systems that plays an applause sound effect when you enter a score of par or better? We need more of those.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RCurtis,

Sebonack, NGLA and a number of course begin with rather benign starts and finishes.

I tend to agree with John Percival as to the motivation and disagree with Adrian, as I don't think the land dictates anything.
It may provide architectural incentives, but it doesn't dictate.

One's introduction to a golf course often sets the mood for the golfer, and sometimes that mood is set prior to teeing off, by the golfer's perception of the initial challenge he faces.

From my perspective I like an 18th hole where you can't limp in and preserve your game/score/match, but not one where making par is unlikely.

I like the first holes at NGLA, GCGC, Seminole, Shinnecock, Westhampton, Southampton, Fenway, Baltusrol Upper and Lower and almost every course that begins with a par 5

[Rob Curtiss]

Jason,

I definitely was not saying to make courses easy all way around to appease the horrible golfer.
I was just throwing an idea out there that might make it more enjoyable.

I hate the fact that there is a trophy for everyone in sports and a participation medal for everything.

But at the same time, I dont want to see courses close because no one plays them.

To me personally, I like the courses that challenge you and make you think at every shot and make me use every club in the bag.
I love the course that at the end of the day I am both mentally tired as well .

[Charlie_Bell]

John P,

Does Winged Foot really lack a driving range?  I played WFW only once, but I remember a warm-up area not very long and with a VERY high net downrange.  This was around 2002, though, so it's possible that they've abandoned it because too many guys can fly the netting.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

John P,

Does Winged Foot really lack a driving range?  I played WFW only once, but I remember a warm-up area not very long and with a VERY high net downrange.  This was around 2002, though, so it's possible that they've abandoned it because too many guys can fly the netting.  


Charlie,

It doesn't lack one, but the range is less than one would expect, given the substance of the two courses and their membership.

AWT seemed to ignore that aspect/element/area with respect to his designs.

The inadequacy of the initial ranges at Fenway, Quaker Ridge, Shackamaxon, Baltusrol, Somerset Hills, Winged Foot, Ridgewood seems to bear testimony to what he focused on and what he mostly ignored.

[Wade Whitehead]

I like an 18th with lots of elasticity.  This can mean various teeing grounds at different angles or a green that provides lots of pin possibilities.

The green on the 18th at Ballyhack has nine or ten distinct pin positions that make anything possible in a close match.

I understand the "gentle handshake" first hole on a course with no driving range (see: Cascades).

WW

[Rob Curtiss]

Pat,

I agree. I love a course that starts with a par 5. Great way to get a round started strong.

To the others,

I guess I see your point of finishing with a hole that can make or break a match and not being an easy one.

[Rob Curtiss]

I have read the comments and come to the conclusion that my original thought should be saved for the executive course or non-championship course...I was thinking in a " lets grow the game" kind of way.

But after reviewing peoples comments and rethinking my thought.

I feel the 1st hole should be somewhat easy, but the 18th should be a valid test of skill- ala Merion -east

[Carl Rogers]

Tom D did something pretty interesting at Beechtree (NLE sadly).  
Hole 16 was a short par 3 uphill ...  easy shot receptive bi-level green.
Hole 17 was a short par 4, not hard once you realize where to aim the semi-blind tee shot.
Hole 18 was a shortish wide open par 5, slightly uphill but a real birdie chance.

I think this was deliberate as holes 8-10, 12-15 were as hard as anyone would want.

At Riverfront, the Hole 1 is extremely deceptive .... wide open drive, but very demanding approach to one of the smaller and in a relative sense strongly undulating greens on the course (no. 3 handicap hole)
Hole 17 is a short par 4 ... the tightest drive on the course, terrain that dissipates the power game & the most tame green on the course
Hole 18 is a half par (5) hole (for the highly skilled, difficult second shot over wetlands for the rest of us particularly when against the wind off of irregular lies) with the largest wildest green on the course

Contrast is the key in these examples

[Brent Hutto]

My club has a 27-hole course with equal (or nearly so) probability that any of the three "first holes" will be the opener for the round. For my part, being someone who doesn't generally visit the range or warm up by practicing before a round I always hate it when I start the day on the nine that opens with an easy, short Par 5. Easiest three-shotter on the course in fact. If my swing takes a couple holes to sort out, I don't like wasting it on what's normally a birdie opportunity.

I much prefer starting on the nine that opens with the hardest of the three Hole #1's. Usually make bogey on it to start the round but I usually bogey that hole anyway so no loss...

[Peter Pallotta]

RC - I'm not an unduly harsh judge of courses or of opening holes, nor am I a very good golfer, but I really don't like easy opening holes. I understand why they tend to be easy (especially on older courses with no driving ranges), but I find that an easy opener starts the round for me with no sense of place and no feeling for the architecture. As I stand on the first tee of what I can readily see is an 'easy' hole, I have no idea of the kind/nature/merit of the design I'm about to play, no sense of how the hole fits the land (or of what kind of 'land' I'll be playing on), no feeling for the uniqueness of this particular course in this particular time and place....instead, all I get is an over-riding aura of "friendly handhsake opening hole", like the washed-out background on a water colour painting. Granted I haven't played many courses by wonderful designers, so maybe those designers are better able to pull off easy openers; but in my experience it is rare that I come off the green after a friendly opening handshake without somehow feeling that it was a wasted opportunity, and that the course the architect wanted to design actually starts on hole number 2.

Peter

[Brent Hutto]

The "first hole" at my club (Ellis Maples, 1960) in its original 18-hole layout was a slightly downhill tee shot with a very gentle dogleg to the left. Then downhill shot to the green which has a single large bunker front-right but considerable contour and slope to the green. There was an open ditch (water hazard) crossing the fairway about 50 yards short of the front of the green, on a 370-ish yard hole. Not exactly the "easy opener" that especially some of the older members had in mind back in those no-driving-range days. Shorter hitters had to play like driver, then short iron then a wedge shot over the ditch.

So early on the flipped the nines and used that as the 10th hole and that's still how we refer to it today. Then not long after flipping the nines, the ditch was replaced with a buried pipe and grassed over. But we still think of the "front" as the "back" and vice versa, even now with 27 holes and no fixed order of play.

[Rob Curtiss]

Thank God we have so many different wonderful golf course architects.

With so many different feelings towards the first/last hole. I am glad we have so many courses to choose from.

what a difficult task deisgning a course must be with some wanting an easy opening hole and some a middle of the road hole.

I wonder how much player feedback goes into the design of a course

[Rob Curtiss]

But all valid points in my opinion!!!!!

[Jason Thurman]

Thank God we have so many different wonderful golf course architects.

With so many different feelings towards the first/last hole. I am glad we have so many courses to choose from.

what a difficult task deisgning a course must be with some wanting an easy opening hole and some a middle of the road hole.

I wonder how much player feedback goes into the design of a course

[Tim Gavrich]

I always bristle at the phrase "warm-up hole" in referring to the first hole, because I'm always wondering whether that means the architect intentionally mailed it in a little bit when designing the hole and, as a result, made it less than it could have been. Why would the owner of the course want the architect to water down his vision just so the first hole could be a "warm-up hole"?

This is especially silly on courses that have ample practice facilities anyway. Frankly having a boring, easy first hole seems a disincentive to players using the range before they play, which means a little lost revenue.

The big thing that sticks out to me from playing Bedford Golf & Tennis Club a few summers ago is how it ends on two short par fours, with the 18th being very drivable. I loved that. Same is the case at Palmetto GC.

[Jason Thurman]

Tim, I agree. Donald Ross' famous quote was that the first hole should be like a "firm handshake." I would equate that to a hole that's a little tougher than average but not overwhelmingly so, and that interpretation is reflected on most of his courses that I've played with the original routing intact.

In this thread, we've seen that quote turned into a "friendly handshake" or a "gentle handshake." And perhaps I'm the one with Ross' original words wrong, and he really did use that adjective friendly or gentle instead. But I prefer firm. None of my favorite opening holes in golf are limp-wristed cold-fishes, and almost all of my ten favorite courses have a first hole that commands strong shots.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()