Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Frank Kim on June 01, 2015, 11:56:28 AM
-
The Lahinch vs Ballybunion thread got me thinking. There are some courses that start strong and finish weaker. There are some courses that start weak and finish strong. Which do you prefer? Do you want the course to have the best holes in the beginning or the end?
-
I just played TPC - Sawgrass last week and it would completely change the feel of that course if 16-18 were holes 7-9
I like the better holes at the end
-
Excellent query! The answer is different for different levels of golf course . Typically you should have a flow that fits your clientele and location. Obviously heroic holes don't make it at a Del Webb community course . Don't think any rule of thumb is static in design anymore but a constant staccato of difficult doesnt make for repeat business .
My personal preference is a subtle start , without too much penalty for pace of play reasons . Perhaps you have a green with some really good pins for tournament play. The key to good courses is that they flow, some breather holes mixed in with the more difficult .
Ebb and flow , ebb and flow.
-
Five Farms starts with arguably two of the toughest holes in golf. I would MUCH rather get them out of the way and finish with potential birdies walking off the course. Yesterday, my partner and I finished with 3 straight birdies. It was a nice way to end the day. If the first two were the last two like we did in the Senior Players Championship, I would be finishing bogey, double and in a pretty lousy mood.
-
Of the courses that come to mind, Chicago Golf Club is a strong start. Those first three holes are very difficult. Two long par fours with very tricky greens and then a 200 yard par three with a fantastic green. If you get by the first three holes without too much damage to the scorecard, you can breathe a little easier for the rest of the round.
I'm usually not a huge fan of a tough beginning but the holes are very fair and I'd rather see them at the beginning of the round compared to the end.
-
Can you have both a strong start and finish? I think Wannamoisett is one of those rare courses--the first three holes are tough and memorable and the last 3 are equally so--a long, tough par 4, the lone par 5 and then 18 is likely the least memorable of the three. There's actually been discussion that 9 would be a much better finishing hole at Wannamoisett, but I think it's strong as is
-
Look at the criticism that many people have of Spyglass Hill and I think you have your answer.
-
Mark,
If hypothetically Spyglass Hills was designed such that the current opening holes were the finishing holes instead, it would be better regarded?
Frank
-
That seems to be the general consensus.
-
How would any of you comment on Pacific Dunes relative to this question?
The walk towards the 3rd green has to be up there in one of the great life experiences for a golfer.
The walk down the 18th fairway is a cool roller coaster ....
But maybe the middle of the course from 6 thru 11 might be the best???? dont' know???
-
I prefer a gentle start to ease me into the round and also a gentle finish which gives the hope of a bit of a 'pick me up' at the end of a poor round. A great example of this is TOC. I think the ball buster finish is something made more popular in tournament golf but are very rarely fun or interesting for normal play.
Jon
-
That seems to be the general consensus.
Mark,
I would agree that is the consensus and it was probably what I thought years ago when I played Spyglass several times.
But, now I am not so sure. Spyglass is Spyglass. Maybe it is better for being just as it is and not following conventional wisdom.
Why travel to see different courses if they all follow the same formula?
-
Spyglass is going to reverse the nines when the Pebble Beach Company takes over.
As for a strong start I'm mixed. Olympic's first 6 holes are a ball buster and if you're not playing well your round is done. I think I prefer a gentle start to get yourself going.
-
Spyglass is going to reverse the nines when the Pebble Beach Company takes over.
As for a strong start I'm mixed. Olympic's first 6 holes are a ball buster and if you're not playing well your round is done. I think I prefer a gentle start to get yourself going.
Pebble Beach Company doesn't own Spyglass?
Reversing the nines at Spyglass would ruin one of the best opening tee shots I've ever played from a visual standpoint. It's spectacular. If I knew
how to post pictures here I'd post the one I took that hangs on my office wall.
I agree with Jon to a degree. I like to ease into a round then have some strong finishing holes that will yield birdies if played well.
-
They own Spyglass but they don't control all of the tee times.
When the club was built they had a number of people put in money for a type of membership that allowed them to play between (I think between 9-12) everyday for a very small fee. This membership lasted 50 years??? It all expires fairly soon and the Pebble Beach Company takes full control.
It's my understanding that they plan to reverse the nines and remodel the clubhouse which was formally the NCGA headquarters that sits behind the 18th hole.
-
Rob,
There was a fifty (50) year arrangement that recently expired.
Frank,
I like being eased into the round rather than being smacked in the face early
-
Two courses that have little else in common--Merion and Carnoustie--have always seemed to me to build on themselves, with each hole being harder than the one before it, sort of building to a crescendo. That is not absolutely true, of course, and harder doesn't automatically equal better. But both these courses to me just generally keep getting more difficult as they progress.
-
Conventional wisdom on Merion has always been that 1-6 and 14-18 were two hard stretches with easier holes in the middle.
-
I prefer a gentle start to ease me into the round and also a gentle finish which gives the hope of a bit of a 'pick me up' at the end of a poor round. A great example of this is TOC. I think the ball buster finish is something made more popular in tournament golf but are very rarely fun or interesting for normal play.
Jon
Agree with this 100%.
Many years ago, Rick Shefchik and I were playing at Troy Burne (Hudson, Wis.), and Rick got to the 18th green and said he liked the hole because it gave a guy a reasonable hope of birdie to end a round or a match -- and that (I paraphrase) too many courses thought they needed to kick you in the teeth on 18, making you fight like hell to make par/win and avoid bogey (or worse)/lose.
Nowadays, of course, we'd probably think that 18th is too long. But that's not the hole's fault.
Dan
-
Conventional wisdom on Merion has always been that 1-6 and 14-18 were two hard stretches with easier holes in the middle.
Merion, Oakmont, Pine Valley (from tips) finish with brutal, long 4s, not my idea of fun. Now would I not accept an invitation to play either? Of course not, but it is so much more fun to walk off the course with a birdie than an "X".
Merion's ebb and flow is enjoyable though.
-
I'm not sure reversing the nines at Spyglass helps that much. Then it's just a great stretch at the start of the back nine. At least having the great stretch of holes first as it is now is memorable, and the first hole tee shot is really a great one. I suppose 9 is fractionally more interesting than 18. But still, I don't think that's a winner and even just for the sake of continuity, I would prefer they leave it as is.
That said, I do think it's the poster child for why a strong finish is preferred. If you played Spyglass 6-18, 1-5, I think you'd see a lot more praise for the course, because there are plenty of good holes back in the trees and it would all be "building toward the tremendous finish out in the dunes."
-
I prefer a gentle start to ease me into the round and also a gentle finish which gives the hope of a bit of a 'pick me up' at the end of a poor round. A great example of this is TOC. I think the ball buster finish is something made more popular in tournament golf but are very rarely fun or interesting for normal play.
Jon
Annoyingly, and not uncommonly, Jon had obviously read my mind! :)
-
TOC has already been referenced, and one of the enforced idiosyncrasies of some of the classic seaside British seaside courses was/is a flat and/or pedestrian start, and a flat and/or pedestrian finish, with 'getting out to sea' being a major objective of the opening holes which typically began from a clubhouse closer to the population centre and/or train station. Panmure is perhaps the extreme example of this, and in A Round of Golf Courses Patric Dickinson makes a similar point much more elegantly about Westward Ho! - although I don't think anybody would argue that 17 and 18 at RND are particularly easy. Formby likewise illustrates this tendency, although perhaps not as much as it once did in the days of the blind, sunken 4th (?) green and the warning bell that announced 'all for the shore', to quote Mr Darwin.
-
The question is not do you want a gentle start AND a gentle finish, but if you had to have one being gentle and the other being difficult, which would you prefer. I believe most would like to ease into a round and ease out of it, but that is not what is being asked.
-
I think the question is whether you prefer a strong start / weak finish to a weak start / strong finish. This seems to have morphed into a discussion about the difficulty of the holes rather than their quality. For example, 18 at RCD is considered by many to be a weak finish and a let down compared to the previous holes. Does anyone really want to claim that it is easier than number 1 which is rightly hailed as a classic par 5? Difficulty and quality are very different things.
It shouldn't make any difference but it clearly does. When leaving a course, you obviously have the closing holes in your mind more than the opening holes. Human nature makes it very difficult to give hole number 6 the same weight as hole number 18 when evaluating the course. Courses with a strong finish and a weak start generally get an easier ride than the other way round.
-
Yes, Ed is right. That is the question. Of course it would be nice to have both. But if you had to choose one...
-
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion group where threads are started with an idea or question and the participants expand the original idea and develop it wherever it goes and not a question and answer test. Sorry, my mistake ::)
How about if I am just starting the round then I prefer an easy start followed by a hard finish but if I am close to the end and have a good score going then it is the other round ;)
Jon
-
The Banff Spring course is a good example where the sequence of the holes do matter. The original Stanley Thompson routing had a strong start and a strong finish starting and finishing near the Banff Springs hotel. The old #1 grabs your attention right from the start and the course finished strongly heading toward the hotel next to the Bow river in the original routing. The current routing has those holes in the middle of the back nine.
-
Generally speaking there is a reason the architect picked the starting and end points of his course. Jumping in the middle somewhere to start your round is never a good thing. I'm always a bit let down when the only chance to play a special course is in a shotgun and I'm not the lucky group on hole #1! Banff is a perfect example of screwing up a fabulous routing. I don't think the original opening tee shot was that difficult there and 2&3 eased you into the round. The finishing stretch was fantastic.
-
Beechtree, sadly NLE, was a course that had a deliberate (my opinion) soft landing, from a degree of difficulty perspective, on the last 3 holes to contrast the difficulty of holes 12-15. It would also be reasonable to conclude that the first three holes offered an easy start. Beechtree was an interesting course in how it changed gears, holes 7 & 11 offered a respite in between holes that would give the golfer as much as she/he could handle.