[Michael Whitaker]

I recently returned from a 10-day golf excursion to Scotland. The last day of our trip we played 36 holes at North Berwick (West). Before leaving for Scotland I read with great interest the review of the course on this web site and, as a result, was excited when I reached the 16th. To refresh your memory, the review states the following about the green and second shot required on the 16th:

"The green - or perhaps the greens - are two upside down tea cups connected by a four foot valley that bisects the green. Trying to hit and hold the green is one of the most fun shots in golf. The recovery shot when the approach fails is most vexing. Coming when it does toward the end of the round when the nerves may well be shot, the hole is a real test. It is among the authors' favorite medium length holes in the world."

Well, when someone states that a hole is one of their most favorite in the world I sit up and take notice. However, I must say I am "vexed" as to how anyone could enjoy playing this hole... except for the sheer novelty of it!

The day we played the pin was on the lower green section and it was virtually impossible to put a shot of any kind on the green. We had a group of eight golfers with handicaps from 5 to 15 and not one was able to keep a shot on this green in either round we played! That's 16 shots and not one stayed on the green.

The caddies (2) in my group were members of the course and neither were fans of this hole. To quote them, "too many good shots turn out bad, and too many bad shots turn out good." After our round we discussed this hole with several members in the lounge and got pretty much the same reaction... an unfair hole that too often depends totally on luck for success.

I am personally a fan of most of Mike Strantz's courses and have seen him fried on this site for his "unorthodox" design choices... but, I've never seen him create anything like this crazy green complex. What would you guys say if Strantz or someone else tried to create something like the 16th at North Berwick here in the USA? Would you consider it for one of your "favorite medium length holes in the world," or would you rant about the unfairness of it?

And is a hole great if even the members dislike it and think it is a joke?

Maybe I am missing something here. Educate me.

[Paul Richards]

Isn't this the Biarritz-style hole?

[Paul Turner]

Who said a par 4 shouldn't involve a chip and a putt?

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Paul isn't this the wall hole? I found it so fun that I did not take it tooseriously. However we all hit the green but with a down wind which we has the front part of the green was very tough.I tried a low chop shot with tons of back spin and sorta kept it on the fringe. lol

[CHrisB]

John,
The wall hole is #13; #16 is right after the redan.

Clemnet,
Your distinction between a "favorite hole" and a "great hole" is appropriate here. I doubt anyone would call #16 great, but it is unique and I found it to be fun to play, even if it takes several times around to hit the green.

favorite<>great
fun<>great

[Stan Dodd]

Hit 8 iron to the green and made a 10 footer.
What is the fuss.

[BCrosby]

No. 16 is a great hole. A short par 4. The approach to the green is with a lofted club. The green has a fore and aft portion, with a deep swale in between.  (It's not a Biarritz. The green is domed, fairly narrow and it doesn't have the classic flanking bunkers of a Biarritz).) There is plenty of room to land a ball on either part of the green. The swale between the two areas is one of the seven wonders of golf. The day I played three weeks ago the pin was aft. I hit a wedge to 15 feet. Missed the putt. But the shot from the fairway was a knee-knocker. If you miss the green, an up and down is near impossible.

A great short par 4. One of my favorites.

Bob  

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Clemnet

I agree that it is a goofy green (and the rest of the hole is just a pasture with a stream in it), and yet.....

This site likes goofy.

[Paul Daley]

In the time-honoured UK tradition of naming holes, the 16th hole at North Berwick is called GATE. I'm struggling to think of a more exciting example of an old-fashioned, yet thrilling challenge. But it is an important artifact in another way; the green demonstrates how UK greens are frequently mere extensions of the linksland terrain leading up to the green. There is not much in the way of delineation, and brother, in this day and age of conformist strerilised design, that is a good thing. To quote Gil Hanse, "The sooner we stop trying to make sense of design, the better!"    

[Michael Whitaker]

Whitey - YOU, sir, are The Man!!!

ChrisB - I, too, found the hole "unique" and "fun," but my main memory is the unfairness of the green. As BCrosby says, "If you miss the green an up and down is near impossible." According to the members we spoke with MOST shots miss the green. What is "fun" for some can be torture for others. It just seems to me a hole that requires so much pure luck shouldn't be so exalted.

Paul - I like your quote by Gil Hanse,"The sooner we stop trying to make sense of design, the better!" I couldn't agree more. However, as I have read through this discussion board about other courses I've wondered if there isn't a double standard for "excellence." For example, the hole we are discussing here is praised because it is unique, fun, and "natural," whereas Doonbeg has been ripped because of what some consider quirky and "unfair" features. If Doonbeg had been designed 100 years ago would it too be considered "fun" and "unique" and praised for bringing pure luck into play? Or, is it just because Berwick is old that we accept the 16th as natural "genius."

And, I'll pose my second question again... If someone created anything similar to the 16th hole at North Berwick today (natural or not) would you accept it and praise it's design, or would you rant about the unorthodox nature of the hole and criticize it's unfairness?

[Brian_Ewen]

Clemnet

Since when ,were golf holes  classed as "Fair"  and "Unfair"

Brian Ewen

[Michael Whitaker]

Brian - that is quite a cavalier response! Everyone has played a hole that, to that person, seems "unfair" - by whatever definition he/she deems a hole to be unfair. But, that is not my point.

Should one blindly accept what we will call, for sake of argument, "quirkiness" of any kind on a hole? When I run into a quirky design feature (like the green we are discussing) do I just smile and chalk it up to "naturalness" or "bad design?" Or, do I accept anything for what it is and enjoy it for the fun of it?

[BCrosby]

Clemnet -

I don't think par on the 16th is merely a matter or chance. To the contrary, you are hitting a lofted club (I hit PW as I recall) into an appropriately tight putting surface. As with the 10th at Riviera, a miss from 125 yards deserves more pain than a miss from 200 yards.

I also think holes like the 16th at NBGC would be well received in the US. (Well, some adjustment period might be in order.) But sooner rather than later, greens of its type - if not over used - would be viewed as a welcome change from the usual.

Equally radical greens exist in the US and they are well-loved. Two that come to mind are nos. 5 and 14 at ANGC. They are no less nasty and no less fun to play.

Bob

[Stan Dodd]

Clement,
I am not the man, I just hit 3 good shots.  Sorry to offend.
I think you can smile and and chalk it up to the quirkiness of a great old layout.  I agree with Paul some par fours might need a chip and a putt.  I have never hit Foxy at Dornoch in two but I don't think it is need of redesign.I don't think I would rant about the unfairness.  If I didn't like it I wouldn't play their again.  My point is that given the quirk or unfairness it is still playable even by someone  with my meager talents.
Cheers
Stan

[Michael Whitaker]

BCrosby - I respectifully have to disagree with the comparison of the 5th and 14th greens at ANGC with the 16th at NB. There is nothing similar about them. As a matter of fact, I don't think I have ever seen a green anywhere that is as bizarre as the 16th at NB! But, don't get me wrong... I had a great time at NB, loved the course, and enjoyed my adventure on the 16th. I'd like to play it again tomorrow!!

But, it made me wonder if we are giving this "different" green a pass and praising it simply because it is "old," and "natural," and infamous. I disagee with your feeling that greens of this type would be accepted here by the masses. All you have to do is read any discussion on this site (not to mention the "real" world) about a course with "unusual" design features and you'll understand my doubt. Courses are critized for overly undulating greens, blind shots, and "lack of playability." Personally, I love different. I think that is why I am drawn to Mike Strantz courses. But, how many times have you seen a Strantz course described as "over the top?" True Blue in Pawleys Island, SC, for example, is often described as "over the top" on this site... even by people who have never played it! It is one of my favorite courses and a LOT of fun to play. But, when visitors ask for suggestions of courses to play in the Myrtle Beach area, the contributors to this site steer people away from True Blue... calling it "over the top."

Do you see what I mean? You don't get more "over the top" than the 16th at NB.

[Dan Kelly]

Clemnet --

If North Berwick were a course with 18 greens as goofy as No. 16, no one would be talking about it here.

Yes, as young Dr. Goodale says, this site (including this contributor) likes goofy -- but in moderation, please.

Who could object to one goofy, allegedly "unfair" (silly concept, in golf) green, in the company of 17 "fair" ones? I guess you could -- but I wish you wouldn't.

Here's a better question, I think, for you to pose: What would you guys say if some modern architect put a green right behind a freakin' wall (a la North Berwick 13)?

[BCrosby]

Dan -

I told this story already on another GCA thread, but I can't resist telling it again.

My delightful playing companion (a local doctor) of three weeks ago had a good round going. His drive on The Pit (no. 13) was in the middle of the fairway. His eight iron looked good as it arched towards the green until it hit the top of the wall and bounded over the green, over the dune on the left and into the North Sea. He hit his provisional just short of the wall which, after one try, he found he couldn't get up fast enough. He then chipped back down the fairway and finally reached the green with a wedge.

Unfair? Goofy?

I loved the hole. Loved it. Moreover, I don't think it is either unfair or goofy. First, the wall predates the course and is beautiful. Second, the wall requires strategic choices off the tee and on the second shot. Third, there is nothing like it in the world.

Finally, as to the goofy/unfair charge (btw Dan, I'm not sure you feel that way): How would my friend's results been any different if - instead of a wall fronting the green - there had been a pond? Would we say it was unfair or goofy if his first shot had come up short into the pond? Ditto with his second? The consequences for my friend would have been the same. Two approaches that came up a little short. Both paid a steep price.

I think N. Berwick tends to bring out category confusion. We see things used as hazards we have never seen used before. Therefore they must be goofy or unfair.

But the fact of the matter is that these odd features function as very traditional hazards requiring traditional shot choices. It's just that these hazards don't LOOK anything like what we are used to seeing around greens.

Bob

P.S. Getting back to the 16th. My playing companion that day told me that Mikkelson took a 9 on the 16th during an Open qualifier sometime in the early 1990's.

  

[Dan Kelly]

Bob --

Just for the record:

I don't think that North Berwick West 13 is either unfair (a goofy concept, in golf) or goofy.

On the contrary: I LOVE the hole. I love the wall -- and that it predates the golf course, and that they've left it there. I love the green. I love the par I made there when I played a prudent 2nd to the back of the green.

I agree with everything you said about it. It's one of my favorite holes, ever.

The only reason I brought it up was that I thought a wall-fronted green would provide Clemnet with a better starting point in his quest to challenge the intellectual integrity of the Group.  

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Bob

"Goofy" is an affectionate term!  Surely you remember Mickey Mouse's best pal.

On the other hand, as Dan says, 13 is world class.  The green just sits there behind that wall and looks at you like Bugs Bunny looked at Elmer Fudd, daring you to take your best shot..........

Th-th-that's all f-f-olks

Rihc

[Nick_Ficorelli]

Was told Mickelson made 6 here last month as he drove into the bunker on the left and ,with the pin in the back section needed 5 more to get down.
I agree that many menbers dislike the hole....maybe one of the reasons the architect is "unknown".
Although goofy...its a fun kind of goofy.

[Slag Bandoon]

 Clem, Apparently the 16th made a profound and lasting impression on you.  That should say something.  That hole, played after mongo Redan made my amygdala hyperspaz.

[Michael Whitaker]

Slag - It was not that the 16th hole itself made a profound impression on me. I truly enjoyed the hole, as well as the entire course... especially the 13th with the second shot over the wall. It was all a LOT of fun and, as I said before, I wish I could play it again tomorrow.

It just got me to thinking about how such "unorthodoxy" (I'm trying to choose my words carefully here) is so readily praised and accepted by Americans on courses in Scotland and Ireland. It seems that many of us are in awe of these unusual features on UK courses while, at the same time, similar features on courses in this country are often criticized by the general public (not to mention "reviewers") and rejected as "artificial" and "contrived."

I'm not intending to challenge anyone or anything here... I just wonder: Does it matter if it is artificial or not, if it works? Does it matter if it is unorthodox if I enjoy the course and it is fun? I enjoyed the challenge and uncertainty of NB... the 13th and 16th and all. Why don't we give current designers the benefit of the doubt when we encounter "different" features on modern courses instead of dismissing their efforts as "over the top?"

[Michael Whitaker]

Slag - It was not that the 16th hole itself made a profound impression on me. I truly enjoyed the hole, as well as the entire course... especially the 13th with the second shot over the wall. It was all a LOT of fun and, as I said before, I wish I could play it again tomorrow.

It just got me to thinking about how such "unorthodoxy" (I'm trying to choose my words carefully here) is so readily praised and accepted by Americans on courses in Scotland and Ireland. It seems that many of us are in awe of these unusual features on UK courses while, at the same time, similar features on courses in this country are often criticized by the general public (not to mention "reviewers") and rejected as "artificial" and "contrived."

I'm not intending to challenge anyone or anything here... I just wonder: Does it matter if it is artificial or not, if it works? Does it matter if it is unorthodox if I enjoy the course and it is fun? I enjoyed the challenge and uncertainty of NB... the 13th and 16th and all. Why don't we give current designers the benefit of the doubt when we encounter "different" features on modern courses instead of dismissing their efforts as "over the top?"

[BCrosby]

Clemnet -

After my visit to Scotland, I too kept wondering why more of the "unorthodoxy" doesn't find its way into US courses. Scots love it, Americans that visit love it, but we (the royal "we") don't seem to love it on courses in the US.

I don't know why that is.

Dan K. may have hit on one reason. When American architects try to get funky they try to funk up every hole. See, True Blue. It exhausts people.

For all of North Berwick's odd holes and hazards, the vast majority of its holes are quite traditional. There is a healthy mixture of the ridiculous and the sublime, if you will.

But basically I don't know why the funky hasn't travelled well to the US. I hope that changes.

Bob

[D. Kilfara]

The responses so far in this thread seem to say to Clemnet either a) it's goofy/quirky, and that's good, so learn to love it!, or b) what about that 13th hole, huh? He asks a lot of good questions, but I haven't seen any good answers which are on point - a rarity in this group, I hasten to add! - apart perhaps from ChrisB's post early on in the thread.

I myself really like the 16th green, first and foremost because of its uniqueness. Sure, it isn't always fair to the golfer - although I believe different sections of the green are easier to hit from different sides of the fairway, which encourages a semblance of strategy from the tee. Too, there are good misses and bad misses on every hole and on every shot; this green tends to magnify the bad misses (which if memory serves means anything to the right of the green when the pin is front or back), which is a good thing. Most importantly, for me, the 16th green gets away with something you wouldn't get away with on a modern design because it came into being before golf course architecture became an art as such. North Berwick is almost the equivalent of a cave painting in terms of its antiquity - a very stylistic cave painting, mind you, but still something very early in the evolution of architecture. There weren't rules to follow or schools of thought to emulate...the course mostly just is, because that's mostly how it was when it began. There's something wonderfully refreshing about that, isn't there?

That said, I've begun to think North Berwick gets too much of a free pass from critics on this site. On my most recent visit there, I was struck by how mundane a lot of the terrain is - there are many wonderful contours on the property, but there are also a number of flat fields with little character which pass as fairways, and a number of ordinary greens which don't really pass muster. I'm not sure if any course in the world with holes as sublime as the Pit and the Redan is as uneven in terms of general quality from hole to hole. It's a unique place and well worth seeing, but I think it must be very difficult to rate it highly (among the Top 50 in GB&I, say) unless you turn a very blind eye to its weaknesses.

Cheers,
Darren

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()