Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tim Gallant on December 13, 2017, 05:28:13 PM
-
This quote blew me away. Who said it and is he right?
'They asked me ‘do you think we have any weak holes?’ my reply to that was, ‘if you don’t have any weak holes, well you should have!’
(Crockett, 2015, golfcoursearchitecture.net)
-
Without a distinct strength, how could you have a weakness?
-
"Weak" is too relative a term to be credible, beyond an esoteric. Ebb and flow of sequences implies a spectrum of tension.
Fazio said it best to Steve Wynn, when relaying to Wynn why he doesn't like working for people like him. To paraphrase, 'They always want 18 great holes, which burns me and the golfer out, by the 5th hole.
-
Is the 18th at CPC weak?
I don't think so, but I don't doubt some would make that claim.
-
Can’t believe any architect has ever intentionally designed & built a weak/breather hole - for the sake of pace, flow, variety or any other reason save (perceived) necessity.
Yes, post-facto, it can be a description of/rationale for a golf hole that golfers don’t consider one of the best (even if only relative to all the rest, as Jim points to).
But I suppose the old mantra of “no weak holes” has become so tired and meaningless that it’s now okay to make as if weak holes are not only necessary but useful.
I think I’d rather have an awkward or preposterous golf hole (even a dog-leg!) than a weak one; and besides, if the architect creates a wicked and interesting green (which nothing stops him from doing, anytime, anywhere) how ‘weak’ could any hole really be?
I think some architects and golfers alike might be confusing a lack of scenery with a lack of strategy; or a break from the formula with a failure of form.
-
The problem is that great courses will have a "weak" hole only because they are being immediately compared to the great surrounding holes. So like the 18th at Cypress...it's not the worst hole in the world by any stretch, but it's always called terrible because it comes after 15-17.
-
Strong vs. Weak
Thrilling vs. Boring
Intelligent vs. Stupid
Exciting vs. Bland
Bold vs. Sublime
Difficult vs. Easy
Great vs. Weak (again)
I guess I just don’t know what y’all mean when you say a hole is “weak”.
-
For me, a weak hole is one that is not very interesting..forgettable. I guess for championship courses TOC's 9th is the posterboy weak hole. I can't even say it is well placed as a breather hole. It is curious how it was okay to mess with 16 & 17 and yet leave the 9th in a dull state.
Ciao
-
Look at Pebble Beach...weak holes 1,2,3,4,6,7
-
The thing that struck me was not what a weak hole constitutes, but why having a weak hole is necessary.
Yes, we will all have different definitions on what is considered 'weak', but if you take the definition as a given, then is there a reason to have them? A few have hinted at ebb and flow, which is important, but are there other reasons? The person who said this was referring to having weak holes in order to keep pace of play. We continually talk about how rounds are getting longer, yet we demand that courses have 18 strong holes.
So which do we value more? If it's a balance, then what is the proper ratio (weak holes against time to finish a round)?
-
Tom Simpson: “We therefore intend to include one thoroughly amusing but bad hole for the sake of variety and a brief interval of mental tranquility.”
Bob
-
Tim
Sorry, I don't see a definition for weak hole in the quote. However, as you suggest, sure, it is often important to include holes which are not difficult...at least on the surface...I spose one reason could be pace of play.
Bob
That Simpson quote often amuses me, but I cannot recall the holes to which he is referring. I remember he was quite scathing about Rye's 9th because it was too obvious. On this I would very much disagree with Simpson. The terrain alone requires a significant amount of "adjusting" to hit the green in two when the course is keen.
Ciao
-
Sean -
I don't know the holes to which Simpson was referring. My sense, however, is that it was something of a general principle for Simpson. The extent to which he actually followed it I can't answer.
Bob
-
Bob - what a strange yet resonate quote that is; Simpson in his Max Behr period, perhaps?
I mean, by "amusing" I imagine he meant fun; and what else can "tranquil" mean except easy/less challenging?
But he characterizes this tranquil and amusing golf hole as a "bad" one -- which makes me wonder what qualified for Simpson as a "good" hole.
He couldn't have meant a stout and brutish slog.
Peter
-
So, without struggling to much to identify what a weak hole is, I’ll stick with basic English to surmise that the opposite of a weak hole is a strong hole.
I’ve played a couple courses that have 18 holes that would fit into the category of “strong” holes. The Ocean Course at Kiawah comes to mind. I was exhausted and had no ambition to play any more golf that day, and certainly not on the same course. Does that make it a bad course or a great course, or is it irrelevant?
My personal preferences would indicate that a great course should compel one to go right back at it, as the fun and joy of the game, with all its challenges and nuances presenting themselves throughout the round (but not always) draws the golfer back.
And, what about Match Play? What fun will a weaker player have playing a course of 18 strong holes if their opponent is a strong player? There has always been an somewhat unspoken definition of what constitutes a great match play course, but I would say that a wide variety of strong and weak holes is part of it.
Greywalls is a course that brought the experience of a breather hole to life for me. Holes 1-9 are a visual feast, dramatic topgraphy and geology and shot requirements in abundance. When I reached the 10th tee, I physically bent at the waist with my hands on my knees, and exclaimed “Whew!”. I had finally gotten the breather I needed (weak hole?), and maybe a little late in the round for this old goat. Nonetheless, it was that moment that the idea of ebb and flow was cemented. Does an architect ever deliberately design a “weak” hole? Absolutely.
-
The holes at Pebble Beach 1,2,3,4,6,7 are all short holes and allow the player to get off to a good start. They are "weak" in some respects or breather. Who wants 18 tough, difficult holes? I remember playing Pete Dye's Sawgrass course, no let up, no where to bail out on many holes or either side, not fun.
-
Carey,
Give me a course full of holes like 4 and 6 all day long. I must admit, I'm a bit confused by your categorization on this one....
-
Peter -
As has been discussed here in the past, the delicious irony of a "weak" hole among a group of strong holes is that it creates pressure to make hay while you can. It offers one of the few opportunities to go low on an otherwise strong course.
I don't know what Simpson meant by "amusing". I'd guess it was his way of saying that a weak hole needn't be boring.
I like Simpson's idea that a weak hole can be a net add to a good course.
Bob
-
Tom Simpson: “We therefore intend to include one thoroughly amusing but bad hole for the sake of variety and a brief interval of mental tranquility.”
Bob
I like the thought. Perhaps "amusing" in this context means quirky or out of the ordinary. Most everything that is perceived is evaluated to some extent relative to other experiences. Without pain how do we know pleasure? Perhaps without indifferent holes we wouldn't have a good reference for appreciating the outstanding.
-
I remember he was quite scathing about Rye's 9th because it was too obvious. On this I would very much disagree with Simpson. The terrain alone requires a significant amount of "adjusting" to hit the green in two when the course is keen.
Ciao
Played a match off the 10th vs Craig Disher and his Rye friend with Joe Buehler as my foursomes partner, so 9 was our finisher. Don't ask Drinkin' Joe about the 80 yard chip second I hit into the greenside bunker on the right, he was unamused at the time. I tried to explain I was playing the break...
-
"Amusing" means the same as it always did at that time. Only recently has the English language associated it with funny, laughing etc...
In past times, it merely meant "to hold one's interest".... or more literally "to muse over"
I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.
-
As has been hinted at above, weak or easy holes give playing scoring expectations, and if those expectations aren't met, well, it can effect, often for the rest of the round and thereafter, the area between the ears for quite a few players. 15th club and all that.
atb
-
As has been hinted at above, weak or easy holes give playing scoring expectations, and if those expectations aren't met, well, it can effect, often for the rest of the round and thereafter, the area between the ears for quite a few players. 15th club and all that.
atb
Thomas, a wonderful observation.
It seems like we are all in agreement and yet, we still use the 'no weak hole' argument to exemplify how good a course is. I wonder if that is the difference between a 'good' course and our favourites. Sure, a course like Prestwick might have a weak hole or two, but sometimes that adds to the experience rather than hinder.
I know the analogy is used, but it reminds me of the way music is perceived. A record is judged based on the first single, or how many 'hits' come from a record, rather than how it works as a whole. This didn't used to be the case to my knowledge.
-
;D
Know we've been here before . Flow, that ephemeral quality that makes a course great , almost begs for a few "weak" holes. Perhaps soft would be a better term , or simple.
Anyone one here not enjoy heavy metal ? Perhaps because the harsh staccato is too much for your senses. Just too much sensory overload for many of us. Same with a golf course , too many "signature " holes (man , I hate to even write that word) in a row leaves us exhausted.
like a great opera a fabulous golf course ebbs and flows .,are 10, 11 & 12 at Pine Valley weak? No , they are beautiful but certainly easier that 13,14 &15 .
It would be very easy to build an extremely difficult golf course that would give golfers fits. Just have lots of water and no run up areas to any greens . Make the golf completely aerial and only the very best players could shoot a score . Good luck getting many members to join .
Again , weak might not fit here, but we'd have to ask the author.
-
I don't really use the term "weak" but i do use the term "connector" holes. Holes that connect the more interesting parts of the property where the architect had more to work with. These can be designed to be very good holes but they don't start with a level playing field. (intended) These holes are a just a fact of life and probably a function of expense at the time of construction. Modern courses have much fewer of these as moving dirt and "creating" interesting property is just a computer away.
-
In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw. It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."
I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?
The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley. Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?
So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture: the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?
My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course. [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.] But I really don't expect perfection, even from God. It's more important to accept what you are given.
-
Good post, Tom -
But there's also the theory that God is in the details.
I mean: yes, it's important to you to "accept what you are given", but I'd be surprised if you've routinely "left it at that" in your work.
At the macro level, there is obviously a big difference between what you were given at Common Ground and what you were given at Tara Iti or Pacific Dunes -- and you accepted those differences.
But at the micro level, on good but not outstanding sites, I think you must've often 'worked over' a golf hole until it was the best/most interesting/coolest hole you could make it -- relative to what you were given.
Whether through additional thought & work on the green itself or in shaping the surrounds or in breaking up/blending fairway edges or with one cleverly place hazard, I imagine you've not easily or readily accepted that any hole 'has' to be weak.
I can understand how, post facto, golfers and critics etc might say that a given golf hole is "weak" in comparison to the others. But that seems a much different thing than a theory which suggests a priori that a weakness/flaw is actually a positive.
Which is all to say: I don't know if the Mr. Crump-Pine Valley approach (and reputation) has in general been good for gca or not.
But I do think that architects should always strive for the perfect, while all the time knowing and being consoled by the thought that they'll never actually achieve it.
The weak holes will take care of themselves...
In short: others like Bob and Ally and you seem to fully understand and accept that line of Mr. Simpson's - but I still can't make any sense of what he really/actually meant, i.e. how and why he actually "intended" to include an "amusing but bad" golf hole on a course that he built.
Peter
-
In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw. It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."
I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?
The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley. Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?
So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture: the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?
My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course. [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.] But I really don't expect perfection, even from God. It's more important to accept what you are given.
Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.
-
In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw. It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."
I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?
The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley. Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?
So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture: the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?
My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course. [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.] But I really don't expect perfection, even from God. It's more important to accept what you are given.
Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.
Ah ha! But then it depends on your definition of perfection and per the OP, it seems that his opinion was that a course without 'weak' holes as we would define them, is indeed not perfect.
So then it starts with the routing. With land at the designer's disposal, is there a thought to rout it in such a way that will likely lead to a breather hole or two being present? Or, walkability, wind, direction, etc being equal, do designer's look for a routing that will yield the 18 best golf holes? My mind was drawn back to Sand Hills, or even Sand Valley. Did Coore and Crenshaw look for the routing that gave them the best collection of 18 holes on individual merits, or did they look for cohesion that added the ebb and flow that we talk about, but may mean a hole or two that was 'weaker' than others? I haven't played either of these courses, but I choose them because I believe there was land at their disposal.
-
In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw. It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."
I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?
The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley. Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?
So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture: the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?
My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course. [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.] But I really don't expect perfection, even from God. It's more important to accept what you are given.
Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.
Ah ha! But then it depends on your definition of perfection and per the OP, it seems that his opinion was that a course without 'weak' holes as we would define them, is indeed not perfect.
So then it starts with the routing. With land at the designer's disposal, is there a thought to rout it in such a way that will likely lead to a breather hole or two being present? Or, walkability, wind, direction, etc being equal, do designer's look for a routing that will yield the 18 best golf holes? My mind was drawn back to Sand Hills, or even Sand Valley. Did Coore and Crenshaw look for the routing that gave them the best collection of 18 holes on individual merits, or did they look for cohesion that added the ebb and flow that we talk about, but may mean a hole or two that was 'weaker' than others? I haven't played either of these courses, but I choose them because I believe there was land at their disposal.
Tim-I appreciate your take and would ask that question about Tom’s effort at Streamsong. It seems to me that the hike to 8 tee from 7 green is less than ideal from a routing standpoint but that Tom felt the quality of the individual hole was worth the trade off. In this case some of the “flow” was compromised for a very good golf hole so obviously there are trade offs that the architect has to make. I can’t imagine what it’s like to look through the lens of a Tom Doak or Bill Coore but it’s an interesting dilemma the architect faces with each new commission.
-
I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.
This very thought is a major drawback with the first wave great archies. I think they over-codified what was considered good or bad with too much emphasis on strategy VS penal. Part of the process of strategic meant trying to wipe out blind shots and cross hazards....which isn't awful if tempered, but I don't admire the one direction philosophy. I guess there is a price to pay when any one approach to design is relied upon too heavily. I recall this type of converation concerning Pennard. My adamant belief is we are fortunate that a "Colt" didn't get hold of that property. I think a much more standard course in the style of many well known links would have been built rather than the one-off that is Pennard.
Ciao
-
I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.
This very thought is a major drawback with the first wave great archies. I think they over-codified what was considered good or bad with too much emphasis on strategy VS penal. Part of the process of strategic meant trying to wipe out blind shots and cross hazards....which isn't awful if tempered, but I don't admire the one direction philosophy. I guess there is a price to pay when any one approach to design is relied upon too heavily. I recall this type of converation concerning Pennard. My adamant belief is we are fortunate that a "Colt" didn't get hold of that property. I think a much more standard course in the style of many well known links would have been built rather than the one-off that is Pennard.
Ciao
Generally speaking, I agree with this sentiment. But I think you can't simplify it down to philosophy. Within the strategic golden age designers, some played it safer than others.
For me, Colt has always been the safe pair of hands. Nothing outrageous, nothing too adventurous. Simpson, on the other hand, was nearer the other end of the scale. Perhaps that was why the former held an apparent dislike for the latter. Perhaps that's why he believed Simpson to have created "bad" holes. e.g. The Widow.
-
What about holes that look weak/easy but are actually quite the opposite?
Holes where folk walk on the tee thinking birdie and walk off the green with a bogey on the card and a grumpy expression on the face.
Atb
-
I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.
This very thought is a major drawback with the first wave great archies. I think they over-codified what was considered good or bad with too much emphasis on strategy VS penal. Part of the process of strategic meant trying to wipe out blind shots and cross hazards....which isn't awful if tempered, but I don't admire the one direction philosophy. I guess there is a price to pay when any one approach to design is relied upon too heavily. I recall this type of converation concerning Pennard. My adamant belief is we are fortunate that a "Colt" didn't get hold of that property. I think a much more standard course in the style of many well known links would have been built rather than the one-off that is Pennard.
Ciao
Generally speaking, I agree with this sentiment. But I think you can't simplify it down to philosophy. Within the strategic golden age designers, some played it safer than others.
For me, Colt has always been the safe pair of hands. Nothing outrageous, nothing too adventurous. Simpson, on the other hand, was nearer the other end of the scale. Perhaps that was why the former held an apparent dislike for the latter. Perhaps that's why he believed Simpson to have created "bad" holes. e.g. The Widow.
Ally
To me Simpson doesn't stand out as something appreciably different to the crowd with blind shots and cross bunkers. I don't think these guys liked that sort of thing, but would tolerate it once in a while. Where Simpson stood out is his use of centreline bunkers...he was very good with the concept and I see that approach used fairly often on the new breed strategic courses. Simpson also was a but different in his shaping. He sometimes did some great centreline hollows which paired beautifully with bunkering. Was Simpson practically the only guy back then doing unnecesary shaping for fairways?
Ciao
-
"What slowed it down so much? Habits. Bad habits I think. In many cases it is also the difficulty of the course. Bunker play is time consuming, you have to climb in there and then hitting it and cleaning up after you are done with it. Generally speaking a difficult course is a slow course. You see them come up to par threes and there are three groups waiting to play the hole, that is common, but it is also demonstrating that the place is too difficult. There was a panel at Victoria Golf Club recently discussing the course and they asked me ‘do you think we have any weak holes?’ my reply to that was, ‘if you don’t have any weak holes, well you should have!’ They didn’t know what to say, but that is the point. Golf course architecture is following the tried and proven route, like at St Andrews, there are seven holes without a bunker near the green. The difficulties are the grass, cut close or not, a bit of heather and it functions beautifully."
The above is the full quote which prompted Tim G. to start the thread. It is Peter Thomson talking about Championships becoming a victim of slow play.
Ira
-
Again, Peter Thomson's quote is using the word "weak" as the opposite of "difficult".
Used in that context, I think none of us would argue that a course shouldn't have weak holes.
If you use the word "weak" as the opposite of "good", then only if you subscribe to Tom Simpson's view will you agree that a course should have weak holes.
So the only debate is whether you agree with Simpson.
-
My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course. [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.] But I really don't expect perfection, even from God. It's more important to accept what you are given.
Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.
Tim: There's a pretty wide gap between "faultless" and "perfection", as I see them. I used to succumb to perfectionist tendencies, but as my skills got better it became easier to see that there was really no such thing in an artistic field.
Tom Simpson used to use the Road hole as his example: if the Road hole was the best hole in the world, then why would 18 copies of the Road hole not be the ultimate course? His answer was that it would be too relentless and terrifying to play; but no matter what answer you give, you admit that there are so many considerations that perfection is a moving target, to be chased but never caught.
-
In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect,"
Well, there you have it, around here at least.....so many consider you God that you must design the perfect course, every time! :o
Seriously, your last answer, and a few others suggesting a round of golf is a collection of holes, so you must judge them partially in the context of the others that surround it, hit the nail on the head. If perfectly placed, a "breather hole" is a great thing, a purpose built "weak hole" by someone's definition.
For that matter, a great hole, which happens to be the third long par 4 in a row, or the third hole in a row to require a, say, fade may no longer be considered a great hole in the context of playing a round of golf, even if each would be considered for a book like Golf's "500 Greatest Holes." A course with 18 great holes would probably be a bad course, no?
I recall seeing some of Pete Dye's mid career work, like PGA West. Every hole was built to be spectacular to look at. The thing is, if every hole is a signature hole, then its likely none are. If every hole is visually spectacular, they tend to blend together as much as 18 mundane holes.
If nothing else, the way golfers love to rank everything, sooner or later, for any course, holes will sort themselves out in an (often) generally agreed upon ranking, 1 to 18, no? Then, the lowest ranked hole(s) will be considered weak.
As others have noted, if each hole has a purpose, distinct from other holes, it doesn't have to be a weak hole. Now, the challenge presented, let's say placing a short iron in a specific part of a large green, might not be as difficult as placing a long iron on a small green, but it is a unique challenge worthy of putting somewhere in the round, no?
What about figuring out a level putt, on a course full of contoured greens? Is that weak in context of playing the round? It may be weak in context of award winning golf photos, but then there are many lenses from which different folks judge courses. One man's trash is another's treasure, and all that.
-
Jeff, you and Joe H agree that architects sometimes do intentionally build a breather hole, a 'weak' hole for lack of a better word -- and sometimes not even because it brings a related benefit (eg a shorter green to tee walk). So I must be wrong in my views, since you guys are right.
But while I can understand your answer in theory, I can't really understand it in practice.
Maybe I've played too many mediocre courses with too many breather holes to be receptive to what you're saying.
PS: when I first read that the Navajos intentionally weaved one mistake into their otherwise perfect blankets so as to 'let the devil out' I was blown away, and truly enamoured of the idea. I was sure that the devil was the devil of perfectionism, and that their approach applied to gca and to other arts as well.
Now I'm not so sure anymore.
-
For me, it is the breather hole which should often not be what it seems. As mentioned above, breather implies that the golfer is given a break (intentionally or not). Burnham & Berrow has a terrific breather hole in #16. It comes amongst a stretch of tough holes and offers some respite even if bogeys are far more common than one imagines. Sure, the hole is easier than many at Burnham, but weak is not a very good desciptor because it is a good hole. I would think most good archies would always look for a few holes such as this, probably more if the terrain is a bit wild. This is an aspect of design which can often get lost in the rush to create 7000 yard courses.
Ciao
-
Artists sometimes put a small, perhaps somewhat risqué, element into a part of their work, say in the corner of a painting. Bit like an occasional feature, perhaps the shape of a bunker, built into some courses.
Atb
-
Peter,
I don’t think we’re right, or that you are wrong. Likely, there is more to it than simply “a weak hole”.
One thing that might be overlooked is that there should be as much thought and effort to create the weak hole as any other hole on the course. The hole might be a subtle presentation, but beguiling in its play due to whatever opportunities the architect may have chosen to utilize. Or, it might be the phsycological twist in the round that others have alluded to. Whatever it is, the weak hole doesn’t mean it has no architectural merit. In reality, the well done weak hole might take more thought to produce than the in-your-face strong hole.
-
My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course. [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.] But I really don't expect perfection, even from God. It's more important to accept what you are given.
Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.
Tim: There's a pretty wide gap between "faultless" and "perfection", as I see them. I used to succumb to perfectionist tendencies, but as my skills got better it became easier to see that there was really no such thing in an artistic field.
Tom Simpson used to use the Road hole as his example: if the Road hole was the best hole in the world, then why would 18 copies of the Road hole not be the ultimate course? His answer was that it would be too relentless and terrifying to play; but no matter what answer you give, you admit that there are so many considerations that perfection is a moving target, to be chased but never caught.
The discussion about perfection brings to mind the story about Hogan's Dream/Nightmare. The one where he is dreaming that he birdied the first 17 holes at Augusta but turns into a nightmare when he lips out the short birdie putt on 18. Not even Hogan thought perfection was possible.
Ira
-
Jeff, you and Joe H agree that architects sometimes do intentionally build a breather hole, a 'weak' hole for lack of a better word -- and sometimes not even because it brings a related benefit (eg a shorter green to tee walk). So I must be wrong in my views, since you guys are right.
But while I can understand your answer in theory, I can't really understand it in practice.
Maybe I've played too many mediocre courses with too many breather holes to be receptive to what you're saying.
PS: when I first read that the Navajos intentionally weaved one mistake into their otherwise perfect blankets so as to 'let the devil out' I was blown away, and truly enamoured of the idea. I was sure that the devil was the devil of perfectionism, and that their approach applied to gca and to other arts as well.
Now I'm not so sure anymore.
Pete,
As to mediocre courses, yes there are plenty, and plenty where the architect never gave it as deep a thought as those expressed in this thread. Whether pressed for time, uncaring, or under certain directions from the owner (only 20 bunkers for cost or pace of play, etc.)
I can't say I have ever put an intentional mistake in a design to let the devil out, I guess I am just not that deep or spiritual. But, I do think in terms of "things that make you go, hmmm....."
-
In art, the defense of this theory is that "only God is perfect," so any piece of artwork should contain at least one intentional flaw. It's been proposed as applying to everything from Amish quilts to Islamic art to Zen buddhism ... where it is rephrased as "freeing yourself from the burden of trying to make it perfect."
I absolutely believe there is a lesson in there for golf course architects, and who better to have pointed it out than Tom Simpson, who was probably the most accomplished artist among golf course designers?
The counterpoint to this is the concurrent thread on Pine Valley. Did you notice that the GOLF DIGEST title is "every hole at Pine Valley," implying its perfection?
So which do you think has been the more positive influence on modern golf architecture: the idea that every course is bound to have a "weakest" hole, or the idea that courses should be modeled after Pine Valley, and we should never rest in pursuit of perfection?
My own take is that when God gives me a perfect piece of land, I will deliver a perfect course. [Of course, then I would have to retire, or kill myself like George Crump.] But I really don't expect perfection, even from God. It's more important to accept what you are given.
So architecture isn't for Atheists apparently....well I guess i'm glad I dodged that career choice bullet, not that I could design a course anyways,... ;)
-
Two pages in and only one example of a weak hole has been given; #9 at TOC! Surely someone can come up with one. I’ll try, picking two courses a lot of GCA’ers have played.
Riviera is generally considered a masterpiece, every hole has something going for it. The #18 stroke hole is the par 3 14th. I seem to recall the owners wanting to spice it up! Is that true? But I think it’s a wonderful Par 3 that’s more subtle than in your face at just the right time in the round.
A lot of GCA’ers have played Barona Creek in SD. For the first year or so playing there the only hole I could find fault with was #10; nothing really jumps out at you other than it’s a long shot up the hill. But the hole has really grown on me as leaving your second shot out to the left makes for a difficult if not impossible up and down.
Both of those examples would never make it on a Top 100 holes list but add cosiderably to the course. Are they weak, you tell me?
-
Weak easy or weak bad?
-
I think weak is the wrong term. Subtle or supporting would be better I think. Every actor in a movie can’t play lead and every musician can’t play lead.
I’m working with a furniture designer. One of his designs just won a huge show in Chicago, one of the two top shows in the world, the other being in Italy.
When I took him into the space where we wanted the furniture piece, he spent about 10 minutes silently walking around in small circles. Then he says “I don’t know what to look at, you made the cabinets look great, and the floor, and the walls, and the ceiling. Everything is great but nothing supports the other, you want this wow piece and I want it to disappear in here”.
-
Peter, would you agree here?
From the perspective of a high handicapper, I sometimes welcome a "weak" hole, if by that you mean less demanding.
On one of my favorite courses there is a string of three consecutive tough holes. I can par them, but they require a good accurate drive and a good accurate iron approach. If either of those is hit poorly I am now grinding to get a bogey instead of double or worse.
How happy I am to get to the fourth, where the fairway is wide and the green is an accessable punchbowl. For this hole, I can relax and swing away instead of trying to steer the ball.
And yet - how often one pays the penalty for relaxing on this one hole! So many times, from that momentary relaxation, the focus is lost, to your ultimate ruin.
I say a weak hole, properly placed in the flow, can be a strategic winner.
-
Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.
Perfection in what way? The "goal" in designing each hole doesn't need to be the same. I'm a huge fan of variety. I dislike penal courses but enjoy a penal hole or two per round.
Too much water is detestable but I like having a creek or three. I'd rather play on a course with trees scattered (in the right places) than to play at flat and treeless or parkland courses. For example, I don't mind one hole which doglegs around a woods. The same applies to elevation changes. Variety is the key. Give me an adventure! Make me delighted with what the next few holes bring me. Make each hole memorable. I fondly remember some "week" holes that stand out as a respite from a difficult stretch.
The easiest (weakest?) hole on a course may still be enjoyable to play purely from aesthetic reasons.
-
Bob - yes, when you put it that way I understand and agree with you.
And while, as Jeff B says, I think the professionals on here don't get lazy or take short cuts with their easier/weak/breather holes, I've seen many a poor and uninteresting golf hole by architects who did get lazy, and so I'm a bit skeptical.
Again, as an average golfer I'm right with you in liking (and appreciating) a distinct change of pace; but do I think a committed professional should make every effort to enliven even their 'weak' holes -- a little drop off on the green here, a small centre-line bunker there etc.
To use Don's analogy of the bit player: yes indeed, they are absolutely necessary and not everyone can be the star; but at least give me an Allan Hale Sr, a Jack Warden, a Lionel Barrymore, a Walter Brennan, or a Thomas Mitchell, all of whom in countless supporting/character roles were at least as interesting as whoever the leading man happened to be, and in many B pictures were often the best parts of the whole film!
Peter
-
Bob - yes, when you put it that way I understand and agree with you.
And while, as Jeff B says, I think the professionals on here don't get lazy or take short cuts with their easier/weak/breather holes, I've seen many a poor and uninteresting golf hole by architects who did get lazy, and so I'm a bit skeptical.
Again, as an average golfer I'm right with you in liking (and appreciating) a distinct change of pace; but do I think a committed professional should make every effort to enliven even their 'weak' holes -- a little drop off on the green here, a small centre-line bunker there etc.
To use Don's analogy of the bit player: yes indeed, they are absolutely necessary and not everyone can be the star; but at least give me an Allan Hale Sr, a Jack Warden, a Lionel Barrymore, a Walter Brennan, or a Thomas Mitchell, all of whom in countless supporting/character roles were at least as interesting as whoever the leading man happened to be, and in many B pictures were often the best parts of the whole film!
Peter
I agree Peter.
The breather hole I was speaking of has an 80 yd wide fairway with a downhill shot from the tee.
But there is a small round bunker right in the middle of the fairway at normal driving distance.
Also, the second shot is uphill to a green with a false front. Still a breather hole, but with interest.
-
Tom-It’s hard for me to believe that most artist’s regardless of discipline are not striving for some level of perfection. I found a definition that states “perfection” is the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible. I can’t imagine that every one of your designs has not attempted to offer a golf course that is as faultless as possible.
Perfection in what way? The "goal" in designing each hole doesn't need to be the same. I'm a huge fan of variety. I dislike penal courses but enjoy a penal hole or two per round.
Too much water is detestable but I like having a creek or three. I'd rather play on a course with trees scattered (in the right places) than to play at flat and treeless or parkland courses. For example, I don't mind one hole which doglegs around a woods. The same applies to elevation changes. Variety is the key. Give me an adventure! Make me delighted with what the next few holes bring me. Make each hole memorable. I fondly remember some "week" holes that stand out as a respite from a difficult stretch.
The easiest (weakest?) hole on a course may still be enjoyable to play purely from aesthetic reasons.
Bob-I agree that the easiest or weakest hole may still be enjoyable to play. I think the definition of "weak(er) has shifted depending on the poster. Maybe I misunderstood Tom's intent is his reply # 25 but my point was that unlike the other disciplines he mentioned that purposefully created a flaw in their work to "free themselves from the burden of trying to make it perfect" that wouldn't be true of his designing a golf course. I don't think he purposely creates a flaw to unburden himself although I don't want to speak for him. If this confusing I apologize.
-
I think weak is the wrong term. Subtle or supporting would be better I think. Every actor in a movie can’t play lead and every musician can’t play lead.
I’m working with a furniture designer. One of his designs just won a huge show in Chicago, one of the two top shows in the world, the other being in Italy.
When I took him into the space where we wanted the furniture piece, he spent about 10 minutes silently walking around in small circles. Then he says “I don’t know what to look at, you made the cabinets look great, and the floor, and the walls, and the ceiling. Everything is great but nothing supports the other, you want this wow piece and I want it to disappear in here”.
Don,
I complete agree. And it seems, that while definitions may change, we are all more or less in agreement that a weak or breather hole can have its place, and even enhance the overall experience.
Which is why I think it is odd that a course like Royal Dornoch feels the need to make changes to it's golf course. From what little I have read, the 7th is basically being brought closer to the cliff to get more views, etc. But after the stretch of 2-6, isn't it time for a break?
And maybe that's what the next era will look back on and see when they critique the 2nd golden age - that we tried to maximise the strategic and visual interest of EVERY hole, without considering it within the context of the whole. Take 18 at North Berwick. No one can claim that to be one of the best par-4s in the world as a stand alone hole. But because of where it comes in the round, it fits perfectly.
-
Consider for a moment a golf course as a chain made up of 18 links. And chains have a weakest link.
If you consider one particular hole on a course as the weakest hole, the weakest link, and you upgrade/replace/strengthen that particular hole/link, then another hole becomes the weakest.
Do you then need to modify a further hole/link to be stronger? And where do you stop....all 18?
Atb