Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: TEPaul on February 20, 2003, 06:48:16 PM
-
I've been to Friar's a couple of times during construction and way back Coore (before construction) showed me a photograph (of the raw land) and that enormous natural mound in front of what's now the enormous #10 green. He asked what I thought about that huge mound and did I think it possible to use it somehow in an otherwise quite natural hole corridor. I'm not sure why but for some reason I think I assumed the hole was going to be a par 4. All I said is I hoped they could use it somehow and not have to take it down or take it down much but at that point I don't even think if they had a hole exactly planned around it.
But reading the description of the hole on Ran's new course review, particularly the tee length difference and the enormous green immediately behind it (18,000SF--that's immense!), I just realized the full extent of the variable strategies on that hole.
Frankly, I can't really think of a golf hole anywhere that has that sort of elastic strategy at both ends based around a remarkable natural feature like that huge natural mound. Exposing some of the right side of the huge green is very cool too.
The hole seems markedly unique to me.
-
TEPaul,
I think your phrase, "elasticity at both ends" really captures the essence and variety of the hole.
This is a hole that can play at 120 to 220 yards and not seem out of place, whether you're playing the golf course from the front or back tees.
It is a unique hole, a very special hole.
One that I don't think many will master.
-
Pat:
Do you know of a hole anywhere (par 3, I guess) that has that kind of variable strategy at the tee end and also the green end? I don't. Or I sure can't think of one at the moment.
When I walked around on that green I think I must have forgotten about the huge tee differential of 120-220 but it makes perfect sense. I guess I could think of something vaguely similar (but maybe not) but only using some other interchangeable feature like bunkering or even water in front of the green but that extraordinary mound makes this one so unique.
There're may be a number of architects out there who would have the guts to build a hole like that but truthfully how many clients would really go along with doing a hole exactly like that?
This one can hardly help but become extremely notable it would seem to me.
-
The photo's and descriptions of this hole are great - and the variables of this hole are incredible. So often when we become so familiar with our home course we walk to the tee on any given par-3 and grab the same club each time - often before we even look up to see the location of the tee markers/pin.
It's a great sense of discovery each time around.
-
TEPaul,
# 17 at Boca Rio has that type of elasticity, but not quite to the extremes that # 10 at Friar's Head has.
Come on down and see it, you'll like it.
-
Tom,
The third at Black Bear in Eustis, Fla. There are variable tees and the green is at least 80-90 yds deep and set at an angle to the tee. It sits up 20' or so above the valley that you play over and has very nice chipping areas if you miss.
Biarritz greens have some of this elasticity too, don't they??
It sure is a wonderful looking hole. Isn't that mound similar to what would be found at the entrance to the green on a Leven hole?
-
So does this hole have split tees or is it one long tee box?
So being 18,000 ft2, the green is about 120 yards long and 50 yards wide or something like that?
And for those who've played it. Are the left hole locations blind because you have to hit over the ant hill, and are the front hole locations hardest because of the firm greens and ant hill?
-
I love this. A call being made here for the elasticity of multiple tees. (Yes, TEPaul, that is the net effect of what you are saying) I did not think I would live to see the day!!!
-
Andrew Roberts,
The left side pin positions are mostly invisible.
I can't provide you the exact pin location where the top of the flag becomes visible, but my recollection is..... deep.
As to the hardest location, it depends on the combination of the WIND, length and pin location. The green is not without pitch and contour and just being on the green doesn't insure a two putt.
Art Hills and Dales,
Where are there multiple tees on # 10 ?
I must not have paid attention when I played the hole ?
-
Art Hills and Dales;
What is it that tells me you're the same guy as all those multiple "Dr this and that" posts? You're a regular first class devil's advocate and solidly plugged in to all things fair and consistent, aren't you? That's a good thing too as the remaining 90% of the golfing public who's opinions never seem to be properly represented on Goflclubatlas need you.
Tee differential on this hole with the hole's other end is fascinating, not the same thing to me as the multiple tee long par 4s of the RTJ era.
-
AndrewR:
It's big but it ain't that big. Maybe about 1/3 that size. And the mound ain't an ant hill either. If anything it's a slightly inland, slightly modified friar's head type thing. I could tell when I first saw it that it was actually trying to be a monk before hopefully becoming a friar someday until Bill Coore nabbed it and turned it into a golf architectural feature as which it will be pummeled upside the head by golf balls for the rest of time.
-
Tepaul,
Bad math
but thanks a lot.
-
When walking the course with Ken Bakst a year and a half ago, he mentioned that the "Sunday" pin position for tournament play would be short left with the tee set at the 120 position (to the right near the trees). Cool idea to have you walking forward 100 yards to the "Championship" tee!
PS--pictures do not do justice to the height of that "anthill." It is monstrous.
-
"Tepaul,
Bad math
but thanks a lot."
Andrew:
Do not worry about that at all. I'm quite certain I've seen a green or two where clearly the constructors didn't get the math wrong exactly but obviously got feet and yards mixed up.
-
TEPaul,
Are you saying that you like the elasticity of that hole but you would not like the elasticity of a RTJ runway tee or the elasticity afforded by three-four separate tees?
-
TEPaul,
Do you like the concept of multiple tees and the elasticity they afford and the options that the designer thereby provides the golfer via alternate course set up possibilities? Or do you not?
-
Dr. Art Hills and Dales:
Yes, I'm saying I like that tee length differential at Friar's #10 a lot. It does a good deal in combo with the green-end concept in my opinion.
As far as whether or not I like the tee elasticitiy on some RTJ runway tee somewhere, I don't know--why don't you mention one somewhere that we both know and we can discuss it.
-
TEPaul,
Forget the RTJ runway tee, since I know that in the case of Friar's #10 you like the elasticity of a long tee. How about multiple tees--tees that are separate? Do they not provide more strategic options for the golfer?
-
Dr. Art:
Fair enough question but personally I'd like to consider the question more as a hole by hole question to see what multiple tees do for any hole. On some it can be wonderful for variety and others maybe not so much so or not at all. And then, of course, the question of aesthetics does enter into it for me.
In most things to do with architecture I think it's always best to not become too formulaic about anything and get into simply yes and no answers to everything or every subject. Every hole in golf architecture should be ideally as unique as it can be, varietal, different etc etc.
Maybe this question is somewhat like the way I feel about fairway widths. I like variety in fairway widths of holes on a course--some wide, some maybe narrow, some whatever, all depending on what the hole is giving various golfers in the unique designs of any hole. The idea of standardized fairway width, particularly on some of the old classic courses is thoughtless, in my opinion, and apparently evolved into that for the wrong reasons. The same may be said on the question of any hole's tees.
-
TEPaul,
Good answer.
-
To help, there are actually two active tee boxes at #10..the longer length shot back right, or slightly West of the other box.
BTW...the ant hill is actually nearly two hills, once refered to as the "golfing world's masectomy."
-
Dr. Art:
On the question of multiple tees I'll give you three examples of when I think they work really well, when they may not and when they might but aesthetically bother me nonetheless and all in all is why answering this kind of question with a general overall yes or no answer doesn't work for me. It's why I think the answer resides in individual hole consideration.
The first example is the 9th hole at Gulf Stream G.C. Ross originally designed this short par 3 (which is incredibly routed for prevailing wind consideration with separate tees (on either side of the preceding green) that are probably separated by 75 yds creating two very different angles. Ross was extremely proud of this hole and it's mutiple angle tee set-up. There is little wonder when one considers the interesting strategic ramifications (particularly give the winds). For some reason the club did not understand this or did not appreciate it and discontinued the left tee. Now many years later the club has restored the left tee and apparently the club loves it wondering why it was ever removed from use. That's an example of a great mutliple tee situation.
The next is Seminole's #2. It also had in its original design plan a tee far to the right of the present one, possibly almost to the right of the 1st green. To me and obviously even to Ross or whomever that did not seem to be a particularly good set-up for that hole.
The third example is Desmond Muirhead's crescent shaped tee configuration on Stone Harbor's #4 par 3 in combination with a back rectangular tee box. That crescent shaped tee that ran almost the length of the hole in a wide curve (and created a convenient walkway to the green) very well may have created some interesting optional angles and strategies and very much varied lengths but to me the aesthetics of it looked God awful.
So I hope that gives you some idea why these kinds of questions should never be an overall general pat yes or no answer.
-
TEPaul,
Another good answer. I appreciate you being a sport and responding.
Shivas,
You might be overreacting. TEPaul and I have had this banter going for a few days now but I take it all in jest. He has said mildly unkind things to me and tried to equate me with all things bad in modern architecture, such as raked bunkers and multiple tees. But I take that in good fun. He may even believe that I make my living selling pristine bunker sand, but alas I do not. If I did, then I would agree that advocating pristine bunker sand anonymously would not be the best idea. Again, it is all in good fun, despite TEPaul telling me my opinion indicates that I cannot see the forest for the trees. He is a good sport for playing along. By the way, TEPaul and I do agree on the stymie, for that's worth.
-
I enjoyed seeing this hole because it was as good a use as I could think of for the big mound, and it was ballsy of them to build it. But ...
It's a par-3 to a green that's 180 feet deep and pretty much a rectangle, with modest interior contours. Where is the strategy? You're just trying to hit it close to the hole ... behind the hole if the pin is tucked in front.
Yes, you can play it at 120 yards or 220 yards, but that's true of every 220 yard par-3 in the world if you wanted to set them up that way.
-
I haven't seen the hole in person, but I would guess that the sheer size of it will present problems in being able to guage the depth of the flag location. So, the difficulty is not being in hitting or holding the green but in getting the ball the correct distance.
-
Its a wonderful hole. I learned the other day that the sand dune on the right of the green is all man made replacing what was a driveway.
-
Gosh, "Shivas," you're right... No real man would hide behind an Internet handle...
Be a man and go back to using your real name.
So what if 50% of the board knows it. 50% doesn't know it.
Stand by your opinions, not some infantile Esalen Institute alias.
-
Be careful Michael Murphy whose name you call anonymous--you just might get tossed out of the Treehouse on your head.
Did you know, for instance that Ran Morrissett is not really Ran Morrissett's real name? Of course you didn't. His real name is Aloysius A. Auchterloine VI. So stop giving our foremost golf legal mind, Shivas, from the great state of Illinois a hard time.
-
TEPaul,
Another good answer. I appreciate you being a sport and responding.
Shivas,
You might be overreacting. TEPaul and I have had this banter going for a few days now but I take it all in jest. He has said mildly unkind things to me and tried to equate me with all things bad in modern architecture, such as raked bunkers and multiple tees. But I take that in good fun. He may even believe that I make my living selling pristine bunker sand, but alas I do not. If I did, then I would agree that advocating pristine bunker sand anonymously would not be the best idea. Again, it is all in good fun, despite TEPaul telling me my opinion indicates that I cannot see the forest for the trees. He is a good sport for playing along. By the way, TEPaul and I do agree on the stymie, for that's worth.
Aha! Two clues on the identity of Art Hills and Dales. #1. There's only one guy among us who uses the word 'alas', especially the incorrect phrase 'but alas'. #2. This same guy started the stymie thread referred to by Art Hills and Dales.
Come out, come out, where ever you are, Turboe!
Oh, hell, that's not your real name either, is it?
-
Mr. Doak seems a bit bitter about Friar's...is it because we're saying that it's a better course than Pac Dunes, or is it because we're talking about FH and all the talk for Pac has died down?
-
I wonder how many people have actually played both Pac Dunes and FH. Tom D. is making one comment on one hole on what I am sure he thinks is a wonderful course. Whats the big deal?
One of the great things about C&C is that they seem to push the envelope in their designs incorporating different strategies and natural landforms into the course. FH has 18 holes which can be talked about from a design standpoint, not many modern courses give you this oppurtunity.
For what it's worth #10 Friars Head is one of my least favorite holes on the course, but it is still one I would love to see done by some designers because at least they would be trying to do something "unique".
Friars Head in my mind is in awful strong company whereby if someone who had played a lot of golf said it is there "favorite course in the world". I would give them an understanding nod,no argument, no value judgements,it is that good. and the fact that it was created in 2002 rather than 80 years ago makes it all the better.
-
The real feature of the mound is not visual, it is how the mound interacts with the wind. A roughness element like that will surely have an effect on shot trajectories that players will have difficulty figuring out.
-
Why get concerned if Tom Doak appears critical of #10? He's only saying he thinks the hole lacks strategy although he thinks it's cool looking.
Don't try to discourage Tom Doak's architectural opinions because even if you wholly disagree he's about the only one in the profession who doesn't seem to pull any punches on his analyses. Could this have anything to do with the fact he doesn't belong to the ASGCA and may have no interest in ever belonging? Frankly, I think that might be a fair bet. But we need his unfettered opinions on here.
But I was surprised by Doak's remarks about #10 being low or light on strategy. I've been thinking about that for the last 24 hours.
For well over a year now I've been thinking that although strategy in golf and architecture is extremely, extremely important is it actually essential to good golf holes in all cases? Personally, I don't think it is.
I think there can be other architectural applications that can essentially produce the same effect as strategic ramifications as we generally think of them on golf holes, at least as an alternative to the way Tom Doak may be thinking about strategy.
I suppose one should then think of what all strategy means and if the definition is somewhat limited then one needs to consider if there are other ways to produce some of the effects on golfers that that somewhat limited definiton of strategy might.
So what's a good definition of strategy? Geoff Shackelford gave one of the best modern versions of the definition in his original article called "What is Strategy?" He gave the subject a very comprehensive analysis but this summation by him could be used just fine;
"Options, risks, mental dilemmas, decisions, mystery solving, intelligence, bravery. That's what strategy is all about."
Does it appear that #10 fits in well with some of those definittions? Definitely. But certainly some of them much more than others. Certainly mental dilemmas, intelligence and particularly mystery solving would be high on this hole.
And Friar's is gutsy to use on this hole the ultimate mystery in golf--blindness or semi blindness--to create that mystery with the immense fronting mound. Max Behr in an article entitled "Blindness" simply said, "Blindness is the one type of hazard in golf which contains the element of mystery."
The original Scottish, Irish and English architects felt that blindness was a great architectural asset back in the 19th century, particularly semi-blindness athough clearly mostly they were talking about various strategies to put yourself in visible positons versus blind ones and obviously that meant par 4s and 5s and not 3s.
So it seems to me that #10 is a unique and highly interesting and challenging hole by relying on that immense mound and also green size almost exclusively. That right there should create a high degree of mental strategy, 'a call upon intelligence' to quote Behr, simply because to the mystery producing blindness or semi blindness of it.
Clearly Tom Doak is implying there might need to be more to the hole than just that. Perhaps he's right, perhaps he's wrong, only time and play will tell well.
But Tom is saying that, for instance, say the green had an interesting side to side ridge across the center of it that would make the hole far more meaningful strategically of actually coming up on the front of the green or the back depending if the pin was on the other side of the ridge.
Would something like that make the hole even better or would it appear to be too much going on with a hole that already had such an unusual feature (and maybe even controversial one in today's anti-blind world in architecture) such as that mound? Certainly an architectural feature like a meaningful center ridge that created more intensity on the position of the ball on the green would have the effect of bringing the mound into even more strategic consideration.
Lastly, strategies are fundamentally about presenting the golfer with choices, all tempered by various risk/reward factors, and basically bottom lined by various degrees of temptation.
But what about the interesting aspects of pyschological factors of even the relatively one dimensional strategy? Does that have a valued place in golf architecture if done well, if done with uniqueness or variety? Forget about multiple choices for a second, how much psychologic impact will that mound have even with a big semi-featureless (as Tom says) green behind it?
I say it definitely does have an impact and probably a large one and what a golfer chooses to do about it with both decison and execution maybe be very interesting. I wonder if Tom Doak agrees with that and if so how much?
-
TEPaul,
In the context of # 10 at Friar's Head, could you tell me if the strategy involved is substantially different from the strategy in playing # 6 at NGLA or # 2 at GCGC ? Actually, there may be a little more strategy involved at # 10.
I think that strategy is inherently limited on Par 3's when compared to Par 4's and Par 5's. They are after all,
one shotters from a designated tee to a fixed and defended green with a variable pin location.
There's no need to defend # 10.
-
Pat:
#10 is most definitely defended. But how it is may be very interesting to find out in time. I say it's defended by a very large actual mound, by the blindness that mound creates on most of the green surface that can create mystery, dilemma, indecision and maybe even a good dose of discomfort and annoyance in golfers who are less than completely mentally prepared for it.
All good and interesting things in architecture to me. Some may not call this kind of thing strategy per se, but I would, and at the very least if not calling it that it can have the same effect as strategy or at least some very interesting effects on the golfer nonetheless.
In my opinion, strategy is very very important in golf architecture although it may not be essential in all cases of great golf architecture.
Of course par 3s tend to be somewhat more limited strategically than par 4s and par 5s. They just don't have the strategic benefit of two or three shots in progression before the putting--they only have the one and that one is generally quite static.
-
I think you could almost call this an island green hole. There is no good place to put the ball but on the surface and if the pin is behind the mound you don't even have that as an aid.
At Hotchkiss we have a Leven hole with a similar ant hill mound in front. It was played as a par four and as a par three. We recently lost our par 4 tee to a sports complex but George Bahto helped to recreate the hole. Now, I'm not comparing it to the 10th at FH but the mound is similar and adds much to the play of the hole. Ours would be toothless without it although we do have some spines and a small mound running through the green.
-
I was actually wondering if that was really Tom Doak who wrote the earlier post or some imposter posing as Doak. After reading and re-reading it, the post just doesn't "ring" as authentic to me.
Just a thought...
-
Jamie -- Yes that was actually me!
Sometimes I wonder why I bother, though. This discussion was entirely one-sided, with most people gushing over a golf hole they have never seen, and I thought it was fair for someone who had seen it to play Devil's Advocate.
I liked Friars Head a lot, I thought the tenth was a neat hole, although I thought 7, 13, 15 and 16 were better holes. But for everyone to talk about how "strategic" the hole is just didn't make sense to me, so I challenged that assumption in the hopes that some would elaborate. Only Tom Paul and Pat Mucci have so far ...
Pat was right on my basic point that few par-3 holes are indeed strategic (the Redan and the Eden being notable exceptions). But then he goes on to say the Friars Head hole is more strategic than #6 at National ... I can't see how. At Friars Head if in doubt you are simply going to aim to the middle of an enormous green. At #6 National if you're uncertain about hitting the right section of the green you have to weigh what would be the best place to miss ... and you're probably going to have a MUCH more interesting second shot if you do miss.
I'm not sure I concur with Tom's points either, although he did at least take my comments at face value, instead of labeling me as "bitter." Yes, there is a large amount of uncertainty and adventure facing a blind hole for the first time, but it would fade quickly when my caddie told me the distance to the hole and the fact that the green is close to 200 feet deep. However, on reflection, I think Bill was right not to put a contour through the green as Tom suggests -- it would make the hole more strategic, but you could never get a feel for a contour like that in a blind green.
I am really fortunate to count both Ben and Bill among my friends, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want me to lay down about my opinions of their work. Anyway, if you were reading, I said I liked the hole, and I haven't suggested that I would do anything different there ... I just think this thread has endowed the hole with qualities it doesn't have.
In truth, particularly as it relates to par-3 holes, it is most often simply the raw setting of a hole that makes us like it or not.
-
I thought that was a good discussion of #10. Everyone and anyone, certainly KenB if he's reading this should firstly understand that whatever was said is in no way recommending any changes should be made to #10, in no way--this is only a discussion of the hole in the context of a general architectural principle such as strategy and what all it actually means on a hole like #10--particularly on a par 3 hole. And as Tom Doak said, this is only a discussion with a very limited appreciation how the hole does play as it is now since most have never played it or even seen it.
What I said about a side to side center ridge on the hole creating more green contour and perhaps more strategic intensity was only an example of what might constitute additional strategic intensity, only a single example of what Tom Doak might have meant by more strategy on the hole, nothing more (although Doak never said anything about a center side to side ridge). There could be numerous other examples of what might do that--whether such things would benefit the hole hypothetically or whether they would not.
But in the end it's only a hypothetical discussion, nothing more. But it's good to have hypothetical architectural discussions sometimes--it has to expand one's thinking for what might work somewhere in the future with various arrangements.
And anyway, one might say that interesting golf holes inherently foster discussion and differences of opinion, perhaps even real controversy because they inspire different things and feelings in different golfers.
On this point we should all remember C.B. Macdonald's remark about controversy and unanimity;
"Rest assured, however, when a controversy is hotly contested over several years as to whether this or that hazard is fair, it is the kind of hazard you want and it has real merit. When there is unanimous opinion that such and such a hazard is perfect, one usually finds it commonplace. I know of no classic hole that does not have its decriers."
And lastly, again, do not criticize Tom Doak and call him bitter about something because he speaks his mind, even though you don't agree with him. Tell him why and make him think more about it and respond. The last thing we need on this website is to have Tom Doak say expressing his opinion is not worth it.
Then what're we going to be left with on this site? Just a lot of attempted unanamity?--the very thing Macdonald thought showed an example of the 'commonplace'.
-
Sometimes I wonder why I bother, though. This discussion was entirely one-sided, with most people gushing over a golf hole they have never seen, and I thought it was fair for someone who had seen it to play Devil's Advocate.
In truth, particularly as it relates to par-3 holes, it is most often simply the raw setting of a hole that makes us like it or not.
Tom D,
Do bother. You for better or worse earned early notariety for your outspokenness, and have backed it up. If you don't, how can the rest of us armchair critics bring any semblance of reason to discusions such as these.
AS for the second part I edited, that is the beauty of a par three, you have a tee and a target, the best holes have ground strategy, the rest is candy, that is why there are so many photogenic "poster" par 3's that become rote. But Par 3's can be the most fun of all holes because the tee shot has no leeway, you cannot make up for incomplete execution of your choice on a par 3 in hte same way that you can on a 4 or 5.
But, the effusive praise based soley on pictures for most of the posters given the comments on this site previously regarding such a faux pas is laughable. Get real fellas. Same bunch of guys who discussed aesthetics on Rees Jones before?
That paragraph is not a negative or derogatory post about Friar's Head, so don't even get an inkling of that idea. (Tom Paul read this post ten times before lambasting me and writing another 800 word tome without reading it before hitting post.)
Question for those previously on site:
Can you get a glimpse of the green prior to arriving on the tee in the normal rotation of holes? If not, what is the "strategy" of a massive green with a blind pin and just guessing at where it is (as has been implied)? I love the rub of the green, quirk and uncertainty as much as anyone, but if only the caddy knows and tells you to hit a "knock-down 7-iron", is that strategy?
A/t TEP , G Shack said:
"Options, risks, mental dilemmas, decisions, mystery solving, intelligence, bravery. That's what strategy is all about."
Sometimes strategy involves multiple shots, on a par 3, you have but a single shot.
I offer further thoughts on strategy:
Using strategy is determining options and relative risk/reward of each. Ground contours determine par 3 strategy as much as anything as there become choices to reach a particular spot. If you don't have any idea where that spot is it is a fun and perplexing challenge, but a very shaded meaning of strategy as little skill is required to guess a position and a distance with no hints (If pin is undeterminable on a green 18k ft2). Right pins, if visible show hints as to distance as I understand it?
#10 Friar's Head appears unmatched in FLEXIBILITY, sometimes a part of STRATEGIC FLEXIBILITY, but does flexibility imply strategy simply on its own? What percentage of strategy is lock? Are they antithetical?
Quoting from the first post:
variable strategies on that hole? Choices?
that sort of elastic strategy at both ends? Flexibility?
Quirkiness? Yes. I can envision Tommy Naccarato rolling around on both the tee and green. ;D
Great betting hole and a great addition to architecture. You'll never wear out that green. I would imagine always looking forward to such a hole.
-
TEP posted when I was writing.
Adding internal contour would add strategy. The hole already has flexibility.
The best holes have strategy, flexibility and strategic flexibility.
Can you sneak a peek at #10 green from #9 fairway (If I am reading the routing from the aerial correctly?)
-
During the Golden Age of Architecture, architects freely commented about courses designed by their “competitors” and that free flowing exchange of ideas and critiques was probably very good for the art of golf course architecture. The nature of the golf business today and, in particular, the influence of ratings and rankings may make that type of exchange of ideas and critiques perhaps “politically incorrect,” but that is really unfortunate in my opinion. Just think about it, if the golf magazines didn’t rate/rank golf courses, would anybody have questioned Tom Doak’s motives or intentions at all or to any great degree?
I for one was actually quite pleased to read Tom’s comments. I’ll take his critiques any way I can get them. In fact, I tried to pry out of him any negative thoughts that he might have had when I ran into him at the end of his walk around Friar’s Head, but I wasn’t able to get him to do so at that time. Of course, I am certainly not going to just agree with every comment or thought that Tom expresses, nor should anybody else for that matter, but frankly I don’t think Tom would want me or anybody else to do that anyway. However, any comment or thought that Tom Doak does express is going to make me think long and hard, and if I thought there was validity to his thoughts and I could do something about it for the betterment of Friar’s Head, wouldn’t that be a good thing?
-
TEPaul,
When I said the 10th hole didn't need to be defended,
I meant verbally, by you or anyone else, not physically.
The next thing I know, you'll misinterpret my remarks to such a degree that you'll be standing on the mound in front of the green with a butterfly net on a long pole, trying to defend the green. ;D
Tom Doak,
I think the 6th at NGLA presents such a thin target that most golfers don't look at the pin and say where can I miss it, other than when the pin is tucked deep left or short right, when prudent play for the higher handicap is more center oriented. I think # 10 at FH is more strategic because you have far more club selection options than exist at # 6 at NGLA. I think # 10 at FH offers bail out options, vis a vis club selection, and I don't think bail out options reasonably exist to most golfers at # 6 at NGLA.
-
"TEPaul,
When I said the 10th hole didn't need to be defended,
I meant verbally, by you or anyone else, not physically.
The next thing I know, you'll misinterpret my remarks to such a degree that you'll be standing on the mound in front of the green with a butterfly net on a long pole, trying to defend the green."
Well, Pat, if you meant verbally, perhaps you could have said so verbally! This is just another in a long line of examples of why no one ever understands you. How can you expect anyone to understand what goes on in that bolluxed mind of yours if you don't say exactly what you're trying to express in words (text here Pat). Reading anyone's mind isn't easy but reading yours is a virtual impossiblity.
-
TEPaul,
P.S. Make sure you wear a goalie's mask and a catcher's chest protector, those line drive misses can hurt.
Oh, and also dress in international orange, you'll present a better target.
-
Patrick says;
"Tom Doak,
I think the 6th at NGLA presents such a thin target that most golfers don't look at the pin and say where can I miss it,"
Patrick;
What Tom Doak appears to be saying is at least strategic implications exist on NGLA's #6. If mindless golfers, such as yourself, don't avail themselves of those strategic implications then that's your problem and their problem. That doesn't mean the hole doesn't have some serious and interesting strategic options and possiblities for geniuses such as Tom Doak and I who can obviously outthink and outfox the likes of you anyday.
-
And don't be a mushbrain and construe that to mean we'll beat you everyday--that's not the point here--that's only golf--this is architecture! It only means that everyday, every hole, every course we'll outfox and outthink your soxes off!
-
TEPaul,
YES, YES, you're right, the problem is, not only do you and Tom Doak outthink and outfox ME, but you also outthink and outfox YOURSELVES.
Hitting the 6th green at NGLA, understanding that it's usually swept by a little wind, is not so easy, even for the likes of you and Tom Doak, that's a pretty narrow target.
Ken Bakst,
Genuine, constructive criticism is healthy, and everyone benefits from it.
Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.
I however, would change the nomenclature to, fine tuning.
-
redanman said;
"(Tom Paul read this post ten times before lambasting me and writing another 800 word tome without reading it before hitting post.)"
redanman:
This kind of remark is only further evidence of how you jump to conclusions far too often (particularly given my posts on here). It also proves I can post at least ten 800 word posts before you can post one short one. Why would you assume such defensiveness when we seem to be on the same page?
-
Tom Doak
You are absolutely right that every long par 3 could be set up this way if you so desired (although perhaps to a lesser degree due to green length). In fact, the 4th hole at Friar’s Head could be set up to play as short as about 120 from the forward tee to the front pins or as long as 250 from the back tee to the farthest back left pin location. But the thought of using the forward tee for “championship” level play on the 4th hole never entered my mind, nor would it, so it might be worth pondering why that might be! It’s also worth noting that C&C did not design and build this hole with the forward tee setup for “championship” level play in mind and that tee is far too small to do this on a regular basis in any event. What Ran was clearly referring to in his profile was my thought, which I have expressed to a number of people, to use the forward tee to the front left pin as a setup option for tournament play, which was something that just dawned on me during construction, and that’s only one of a number of pin locations that we might use for that purpose. When I am asked the length of the 10th hole, I simply say about 210 from the back, with the flexibility to play from 185 to 235 due to the green length.
You noted that there are only “modest internal contours” on the 10th green as the basis for your thought that the hole lacks strategy. Although I don’t believe that even a green with minimal pitch would invalidate the basic strategy of the hole, which relates to how you choose to approach the day’s pin location in relation to the wind, the mound, the firmness of the green and the dune features framing it, your decision is made all the more difficult because the green is very deceiving and has far more pitch and slope than you may have perceived. Now I know you didn’t have the opportunity to actually play the hole yet, but I can’t tell you how pleased I am to learn that even you were perhaps fooled on your first look! That green is without question one of the most difficult to read on the golf course, which might account for why I myself have 3-putted it more than any other at Friar’s Head. I know you will be able to figure out the deception if you give it some thought, but I would appreciate your not disclosing the reason here, as it would be far more fun for people to experience it first and figure it out for themselves. Also, hitting this green is only the beginning of the odyssey, so if you ignore the strategic implications of this hole and just aim at the center of the green every time, you are going to exit that green with bogey or worse far more times than you would like!
I would greatly appreciate your doing me a great favor. Describe if you would the basic slope orientation of the 10th green and provide an estimate of the gradient of the slopes? It would be quite interesting for me to know how close or far your initial impressions were from reality. Also, while the green is basically rectangular shape, as it is almost twice as long as it is at its widest point, as you can see from the aerial in Ran’s profile it does narrow significantly towards the back and the center axis of the entire green is angled toward the center of the 9th green.
By the way, isn’t the objective on every hole to try to get the ball as close to the pin as possible? :)
-
Just look at that post of Ken Bakst! Is that not the best thing in all of this? What does it show us? Here's what it shows me.
1. The value of constructive criticism
2. The value of openmindedness
3. The value of collaboration.
4. Willingness to understand that change can be benefical, it can actually create improvement. And that change need never be for change's sake alone. Just like during original construction creativity, collaboration should reign and it should be put through a logical and sensible filter at all times--apply basic principles when you think architecturally!
These kinds of things and these kinds of attitudes are great for architecture. The more thinking that goes into something, anything, the better it may be. It shouldn't scare anyone but we all should be realistic about who does it and how it's all filtered through.
Do any of you think George Crump, had he lived instead of dying prematurely before his course was quite finished, would have stopped working on it, improving it, perfecting it? No way, and his own quote is left with us to prove that bigtime. Did Macdonald stop at NGLA or Ross at Pinehurst #2 or Fownes at Oakmont or Wilson at Merion?
Good Stuff KenB and also a good answer to some purists who for some reason feel that once a great course opens for play its architecture should be frozen in time!
It also puts the lie to Pat Mucci's bizarre tenet that if any architect takes the King's shilling (the owner) he should do the King's bidding only. Doesn't that sort of smack of an owner who thinks he knows more about architecture than the architect--like a Coore and Crenshaw, for instance? If that tenet had any real truth to it why would that owner, that King hire an architect in the first place? Why not just do everything himself?
For any of you out there interested in this fascinating process of what it really takes, how it really comes about in producing a great golf course such as Friar's Head, perhaps someday you will be lucky enough to hear from Ken Bakst what he knew way back when, knows now, what he went through, what he learned and how he feels about the whole thing now.
Did he ever feel disappointment that some of his own thoughts and ideas were not executed? Definitely. Perhaps that's the most fascinating thing of all of it. Did he keep an open mind? Did he listen and learn? Definitely. Did he contribute to the vision, large and small, the architecture, the large scope and the minute stuff and get some of the things he wanted in the architecture? Of course. Did he give up some of the things he thought he wanted because he had respect for his architects? Does he think it worked out for the best that way? Just let him tell you. I sure hope he does. And in the meantime just read his posts.
Let's all keep open minds like that, keep collaborating even if it's disagreeing half the time. It's better that way in the end, as a course like Friar's Head shows now and apparently will continue to.
Great stuff and excellent post Ken Bakst!
-
So...
I'd still like to know.....Can one sneak a peek at the 10th green before actually playing it? (As best I can tell the routing is the front nine all east of the back nine, 1 tee, 18 green, 9 green and 10 tee all together with 9 west of #1 and 10 west of that, 18 almost perpendicular to 10, running West->East.)
For example, one can sneak a peek at the 8th green at PVGC before entering Hells Half Acre. Several times at my home course (LehighCC) one can see an upcoming green which is totally blind from the tee to aid in the strategy due to extremely wide strategic flexibility.
I think that can add immesureably to the enjoyment of such holes. Then, the more blind the shot the better!
-
Tom Paul
I would agree with almost everything you wrote with the following exception:
I can’t recall ever being disappointed that some of my own thoughts and ideas were not executed? I did always communicate what I thought and saw as things evolved in the field, as everybody else involved was encouraged to do as well, and if those thoughts inspired something for the better into the final design, then that’s the beauty of a collaborative and open-minded process. On the other hand, if C&C had different thoughts from those that I expressed, then it was always to be their way. I just had such a high level of confidence and faith in the architectural team that I had engaged that I thought it was prudent to allow the people who were far more knowledgeable and experienced than I to be responsible for making the final decisions. Consequently, I am absolutely certain that you will never hear anybody from C&C say that they did something at Friar’s Head against their better judgment because I made them do it! :)
Please note that I am not saying that I wasn’t ever worried or concerned about anything while certain beautiful features were being altered to make them playable for golf. In fact, there were a number of instances in which some artistic beauty seemed to have been lost along that road, but in the end they all, without exception, ended up every bit as artistic, if not more so, when all was said and done. Again, remaining patient at times like that was made all the easier by the confidence and faith that I had in C&C. If there is one great lesson that I did learn, it is to never reach a judgment about a green until after Bill Coore himself has completed his final grading work! :)
-
Dear Ken:
Can I introduce you to a couple of my own clients? Not many have the faith to always let me "win the ties" when we have a difference of opinion about some aspect of the golf course.
I'd never thought about it, but this may be, as perhaps Pat Mucci was referring to, the biggest advantage that the tandem of Bill and Ben have in any working relationship. It's always two against one! (Urbina and Hepner sometimes contribute as much from their own perspective as Ben would from his, but in this respect, they do not carry the same weight!)
I had not noticed that the green was angled away from the tee -- I thought it was straight on -- though I did notice it tapered at the back. And I'm sure the contours of the green did fool me, since it is always harder to read a green in a large bowl where you can't easily find the low point or a flat spot.
I'm ashamed to admit I didn't notice the contours of the green enough to submit a good description. But after thinking about it a bit, it does make a lot of sense to have some slopes on a huge green that are much steeper than they appear. A slope that runs back uphill to the mound at the front of the green would induce people to leave putts well short of the hole -- I can't believe how often I've seen that on a fallaway section of green. But perhaps the most strategic arrangement would be to have the green tilt to one side, so that to leave yourself an uphill putt you would have to think about playing into the narrower space to the left or right of the target. Did I miss that??
-
redanman
You can check out the exact pin placement on FH #10 when going from the practice facility to the 1st or 10th tees. You can also do so while playing the 9th hole, but not without a little effort as you can’t just give it a quick peek from the fairway by any means.
However, pins set on the right half ± of the green and the very front left are visible from the tee without any effort and pin locations in the approximate back left quadrant of the green can be seen by going to the far right side of the tee. So even if you don't know where the pin is before arriving at the tee, if you know what you are doing and you can’t see the pin, you pretty much know where it is. There are, however, a number of pin locations that are very deceiving with respect to their depth even when you can see them clearly. ;)
-
TEPaul,
I believe you've misquoted and misunderstood me.
I referenced and qualified my statements in the context of
"a man of vision" not just any Tom, Dick or Harry.
I also referenced and qualified my statements in the context of restoration work, specifically bunkers.
You may recall that this topic of discussion occured during one of the Merion threads when Fazio was being descended upon for his bunker work at Merion and I countered with his bunker work at Pine Valley.
I stand by my statement. On a restoration work, a man of vision can direct the project to a successful conclusion, with a variety of architects. There aren't just two or three guys out there who are the only ones capable of producing good work.
What can I do to help you stop confusing yourself ? ;D
P.S. I thought a bizarre tenet was that structure you
erected in your back yard.
-
"I can’t recall ever being disappointed that some of my own thoughts and ideas were not executed?"
Ken:
Very glad to hear that--my mistake or maybe I didn't write what I meant to say well enough. On reflection what I remember was much more of what's in the second paragraph of your post above that there may have been some concerns along the way to the development of something, maybe actual, maybe only in thought that changed from something that you may have felt before the construction of something but in the end it all came out for the better in your opinon.
I know exactly what you mean too. My only actual experience in architecture that got done was one green and green-end in a semi restoration. I had an idea about where some interesting little contours should be in that green for an overall effect for all golfers--I was pretty adamant about it too but only in my mind, not yet with Gil Hanse.
I wanted those little contours way over on the left side of the green to create a smaller more intense green space in that section for golfers to get to as we expanded the green on the left right next to a quarry. I thought it would create a really intense situation on the left compared to a far more forgiving right side of the green which was to be much larger.
But Gil put those great little contours in the middle of the green. At first I was disappointed but I can see now what I was trying to do wouldn't have been as good, as that left section would not have been able to be used as much (less pinnable space if smaller) and it would have basically unbalanced the strategic right/left options on the green too much as well.
So now I think it will be much better Gil's way and not mine, certainly for all levels of players. That's why he's the architect and I'm not.
But another nice post on your part about Bill Coore. I hope Pat Mucci appreciates it too. I'm gonna give Pat one last chance to retract his constant beer and melon analogy about Coore and Crenshaw and if he doesn't he's gonna see some expressions of both favoritism and bias come out of me he won't believe!
Concerning his dig at me that I have my phone answering machine message say Coore and Crenshaw---well, on reflection, I think that's a pretty neat idea, I might retape and try that one for a while. Maybe Pat might want to take some messages on his phone for Rees--I don't know--that's Pat's call.
-
Ken -- I'd be glad to share some of my other first impressions on the course with you, privately, as long as they're taken in that light.
I was trying to, but the e-mail address you posted did not work for me. I did post some more thoughts about #10 above, but you might not have seen them since they were simultaneous with your last post.
-
Ken Bakst,
Was the conception, design and building of the 10th green influenced in any way by the 10th green at NGLA ?
-
Tom Doak
Thanks for the kind response.
Yes, I do think you missed that.
A most simplistic description of the slopes of that green would be front to middle, back to middle and left to right, with a pinnable plateau at the back of the green, perhaps all of which would have been pretty much unplayable if greater and lesser gradient slopes weren’t worked into the final grades. And, yes, all of the grades do appear less severe than they actually are due to the overall size of the green and the dunebowl into which it is set, but that’s as much as I think I would like to say at this time.
By the way, if you end up appreciating this hole more after playing it, even once, than just looking at it, you won’t be the first and I’m certain you won’t be the last! :)
-
Tom Doak:
I don't buy the two against one advantage that you think Coore and Crenshaw have with their clients vs just your single opinion with your clients.
It's hard to give you good professional architects much advice about things to do with architecture but this advice I'm about to give you is sure to work.
When you really want your opinion to carry the day with anyone just do what I've been doing recently in green committee meetings---wear your Colt 45 and shoulder holster and a coat on top. When things aren't going your way, take your left arm and move that coat back and expose that Colt 45. Since doing that there hasn't been a single instance so far when I haven't gotten my way and the same will be true for you!
-
Tom P: When we were building The Legends, the irrigation contractor did in fact wear a sidearm at all times during the job. When he told us not to hold up his schedule we took it very seriously!
However, having Ben as his backup must be helpful to Bill. Some of the architect/client relationship in many cases is a power play, especially for a young architect.
If the owner perceives that he is a better golfer than the architect, then he (or she) is often too forceful with opinions about the playability of a hole.
Sometimes the owner is simply used to getting his way in all business dealings -- although I've been surprised to find that some of the clients I would have suspected to be the toughest have turned out to be pussycats!
Over time, I have learned to consider the client's every suggestion, but most importantly to think about it for a while before responding, and to discuss it with my associates (out of earshot). Often clients are just saying something off the top of their heads, rather than digging in for an argument. But, at least half the time they do have a point, and it's possible to address that point in a lot of ways, instead of just the one they proposed.
Still, I don't think there are many architects who wouldn't love to have Ben Crenshaw for backup.
-
"What can I do to help you stop confusing yourself?"
Patrick:
The short and honest answer would be, again, for you to avail yourself of my still open offer to pick up your first dozen sessions with Dr. Katz. That way you will see once and for all that I'm your teacher and your the student. What you're suffering from and have been for too long now is simply a pyschiatric malady known as transference.
That essentially means you think you're me, the teacher, and for some fantastic reason I'm the student. That will never be Patrick--that's just not the way the ball bounces, the way the crow flies, the yin and yang of things, the truth and the light.
You will always be the student. Please try to be a good student--it's actually a very admirable artistic goal to have. And someday if you do that well enough we will allow you into a golf architectural atmosphere, perhaps even a site under construction, and let you speak.
-
Tom Doak
Thanks. I will send you a private e-mail.
Pat
No, I don’t believe that the conception, design and building of the 10th green at Friar’s Head was influenced in any way by the 10th green at NGLA? But let me say the following with respect to NGLA generally. When it comes to golf course architecture, it is never too far from my mind! :) It is an architectural gem and one of my favorite courses throughout the world, and I know that everybody involved with C&C feel that way as well (and nobody more so than Bill Coore himself). So while I don’t believe that NGLA influenced any particular feature at Friar’s Head, it did give at least me a great degree of comfort that certain things that we were doing were valid and not too far outside of the box or bold if you know what I mean!
-
"Tom P: When we were building The Legends, the irrigation contractor did in fact wear a sidearm at all times during the job. When he told us not to hold up his schedule we took it very seriously!"
That would explain why the Legends has always been so soft and slow and unfortunately mostly the opposite of its "ideal maintenance meld".
It's amazing the little architectural truths that come out on Golfclubatlas.com!
-
Patrick Mucci actually asked;
"Was the conception, design and building of the 10th green influenced in any way by the 10th green at NGLA?"
Oh God--the thinking and questions of a slow moving mind!
That's way too close to home and way too obvious Patrick. These guys at Friar's Head are creative, they're fresh, they take chances. Is that so hard to recognize?
The concept of #10 Friar's came from the southwest section of an escarpment on Putooty Ridge in Eastern Bora Bora that Ken Bakst gave to C&C as a concept and they collaborated on it with him.
Ken Bakst happened upon Putooty Ridge when in the early 1980s when he was doing some reconaissance work for.....
Well, if you try to be a better student I'll tell you who he was doing recon work for in about 12-15 years when the classified period ends.
-
TEPaul,
Tell me again, Oh great teacher, how 2 = 2 = 4.
I continue to be awed by your revelations ;D
P.S. With respect to your sidearm advice to Tom Doak,
In my neighborhood, if you were foolish enough to
brandish a gun before using it, your week usually ended
with lots of flowers, and a long procession of black cars
to a place that looked like an overwatered golf course,
with a lot of white oversized tee markers.
-
Patrick:
Once again, thanks for the reminder of my 2=2=4 typo but this is the wrong thread. Would you like me to show you the way to the right thread? I know it may be hard for you to get back there but I don't mind helping you--it's the least I can do.
-
Patrick, to your addendum PS which was;
"P.S. With respect to your sidearm advice to Tom Doak,
In my neighborhood, if you were foolish enough to
brandish a gun before using it, your week usually ended
with lots of flowers, and a long procession of black cars
to a place that looked like an overwatered golf course,
with a lot of white oversized tee markers."
A slow mind and lack of reading comprehension again. Did I say anything about brandishing a gun before using it? No, I did not. Another poor assumption on your part. We probably live in similar environments. However, you may not have dealt with the type of green committee I deal with. There are a number of members that need to see me brandish that gun because apparently some of them had neither heard nor seen that I'd just shot the guy sitting next to them.
-
I'm sure I have darn near gone blind looking over and over at the B&W pictures of 10 and the aerial, trying to discover the hidden secrets to the conversation between Doak and Bakst :o ;D
That exchange is certainly worth the price of admission to GCA today.
-
Mr. Bakst,
How do you play the sandy areas at FH from a rules standpoint?
Where can you ground your club? > anywhere? nowhere?
-
The bunkers are hazards and it is generall fairly clear when one is inside a bunker as opposed to just in a sandy scrubby area where one could ground one's club. The waste areas in the photos (right side of 7, right side of 10) are hazards.
-
Jeff,
Thanks and I'd agree. It is "generally fairly clear". :)
We've had this discussion at other courses too...thanks for your input.
...It's the bleeded out, hard-to-define areas that have always confused me. In a tournament I'd imagine playing everything off the fairway and rough cut as hazard. Is that right or wrong? Or how do you think the best way to handle this would be in a tournament situation? I've never been to Europe's links but how do they rule it there?
-
P.S. Not that it matters that much either. Great looking GC! ;D
-
The sandy areas play as hazards.