[John Moore II]

Ed--I certainly do not think a hole needs to be a half-par in order to be a breather. #7 at Tobacco Road I consider to be somewhat of a breather and its not a half par at all. 18 at Kapalua is not a half-par either (except for pro's) but it seems to be a breather. And as I said before, many times, half-par holes are no breather at all.

[Sean_A]

For me this is a subject that's worthy of its own book.

I've said on other threads that I do not enjoy "relentless" architecture.  It's not just that I'm a 10 handicap and I recognize that most people don't enjoy walking up the 18th hole punch-drunk and bloody -- it's that the thing I value most in a golf course is a VARIETY of holes, and if every single hole is "a hard par but an easy bogey", there is not much variety there.

Life is not a series of "tough but fair" challenges, and neither should a golf course be.  There should be some holes where par is a great score -- two-shotters where the stroke average for low-handicappers is more like 4.5 -- and there should also be some holes where a birdie or even an eagle are on offer to the 10-handicapper who hits a couple of excellent shots.  Par fours should have stroke averages from 3.5 right up to 4.5 and everything in between, based not just on their yardage but on differing levels of challenge from tee to green. 

Really taking this philosophy to heart is what allows us to build a golf course that fits the land, instead of trying too hard to modify the land to include certain types of holes.

We don't design in a vacuum, we design on pieces of ground.  A couple of people have asked recently if I deliberately chose to build most of the par-5 holes at Pacific Dunes on the long, flattish plain where holes 3, 12 and 15 are located ... but the truth is just that it was a plain that had to be crossed three times, and that was how far across it was, so we tried to make three differing holes of similar length in that space.  If it had been 400 yards across, we'd just have made three differing par-4's, and tried to find our par-5's somewhere else.

Likewise, where there is occasionally a fairly featureless stretch of ground which has to be crossed in the routing, I may well build a hole which some call a "breather".  I love the fact that good players EXPECT to make birdies on these holes, and because they do so less than 50% of the time, they can be affected psychologically just by making a par -- and particularly if their opponent makes a birdie.  So I may throw in a "weak" hole now and then when the land tells me to ... but it's not because I am deliberately trying to put a "breather" at a certain point in the round.

This about sums it up.  I would add that a breather hole has to have something about which it which at first takes the golfer by surprise and then perhaps gets into his head as the main hurdle to success - which in all likelyhood is a false assumption.  Only because nobody talks about the hole I will use Brora's 12th - a clever little hole.  When played downwind it takes a lot of self control to holster the driver.  Its definitely a reachable par 4, but the lay of the land pushes the ball right and there are bunkers centre and left to protect the easier line to the green.  Inevitably, the brash player will find himself short and right in a spot of rough with a slightly uphill approach over a bunker.  The problem is that now the wind is your enemy because you definitely don't want to hoist the ball in the air if it can be avoided, but that blasted bunker!  Its a wonderful hole which begins a trio of breathers, all of which can muck up yer card if you miscue mentally or physically. 

http://brora.manage-golf.com/brora/public/the_course/hole12.jsp

This is a good subject - thanks for bringing it up.  I think I said on the relentless thread that a prefer a courses of breathers with the odd toughie sprinkled in.  It may sound wierd, but there is a certain sense of satisfaction to watch a rabbit eat your lunch and yet you know he can't carry a ball much more than 175 yards.  Its proper golf. 

Ciao

[Matthew Mollica]

From their chapter entitled The Ideal Golf Course-

"Imagine, for instance, a repetition of eighteen holes, all of the supreme excellence of the most exceptional hole we can think of at the moment - the Seventeenth at St. Andrews. The strain of it all! Eighteen tee shots of the same intensity or eighteen approaches which courted disaster in the same dire form! It would to a certainty break our hearts and leave us nervous wrecks or golf lunatics in real earnest. In fact, it would be no ideal course for us, however much theoretically we might admire it. We must be allowed to ease the tension at occasional intervals for our sanity, so that our brains may cool, and our hearts expand with renewed life and freedom. We must count on at the very least one indifferent hole in a round; to be quite on the safe side, we will allow an additional half of indifference as well, for the sake of extra relief. The course we think of should be noble in spite of its defects, as perfection throughout would be a monument of chilly precision incapable of inspiring us or of stimulating our jaded imagination. Is it not true to say that where we cannot criticise we experience a difficulty in feeling enthusiastic?"

p. 45-6, The Architectural Side of Golf, Wethered & Simpson (1929)



and again in further discussion regarding compilation of holes to form an ideal course-

"We therefore intend to include one thoroughly amusing but bad hole for the sake of variety and a brief interval of mental tranquility - the Seventeenth at Prestwick - and at least another that is open to criticism, the Sixteenth at Westward Ho!"

p. 48, The Architectural Side of Golf, Wethered & Simpson (1929)


Great passages, especially in the context of this discussion.

Matthew

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew:

I remember those passages well, but your re-quoting of them here brings me to another issue I had never thought of:  PERFECTIONISM.

I think perfectionism is the real problem with modern designs and with a lot of modern designers.  Who is more perfectionist than Jack Nicklaus, who made his first career on it, except perhaps Tom Fazio, who doesn't ever want you to glimpse a cart path?  And Ran has accused both me and Bill Coore of being too perfectionist in our construction and finish work, to the point that there's nothing that appears quirky.

One of the things I admire about Pete Dye is that he's not a perfectionist -- if he was a Tour player himself you would call him a grinder.

[Dan Kelly]

I think perfectionism is the real problem with modern designs and with a lot of modern designers.  Who is more perfectionist than Jack Nicklaus, who made his first career on it, except perhaps Tom Fazio, who doesn't ever want you to glimpse a cart path?  And Ran has accused both me and Bill Coore of being too perfectionist in our construction and finish work, to the point that there's nothing that appears quirky.

Very interesting stuff.

Once more, Tom, you've made me think that what you do for a living is analogous to what I do for a living.

I edit words.

You edit the land.

The writers I've been editing for almost 20 years now are not Writers. They are amateurs. They are readers of my newspaper. They send me their own stories, and I choose those I like best. Their writing is full of quirks -- quirks that professional writers have mostly learned to eliminate, or that professional editors mostly eliminate for them.

I could eliminate those quirks -- and it's my strong instinct to do so. (I am a big-time perfectionist, and I got very rigorous training in matters compositional, at home and in school.) I could "perfect" their writing -- making it all seem just as "professional" as the writing by our full-time reporters. But that would diminish its flavor and its authenticity -- so I leave as much of the quirk as I can, consistent with my overall goal of making their work entertaining and understandable. If that means that I have to leave, untouched, a lousy simile or a hoary old cliche (that might be one right there!) ... well, so be it. People want to hear *their* voices, not mine.

In my peculiar job, doing *nothing* to eliminate an imperfection occasionally produces perfection.

How does an editor of the land achieve perfection? How does he rein in his own perfectionism?

[Tom_Doak]

Dan:

My mom was an editor, too, that's probably where I got it from.

Most modern architects "edit the land" with a D-8; what they are really doing is totally rewriting the land, and as you note, there is a big difference.

To rein in one's perfectionism, recognizing it is the first step.

I guess what helps me remember what not to do is the fact that I've seen so many courses.  I've seen a lot where certain architects have just repeated their same shtick, and I've seen a lot of cool little old courses which have unique features because they didn't rewrite.  And I know which of those two scenarios I've enjoyed more.

That is why I normally avoid "blue sky" discussions here of "ideal" set-ups for golf courses, or anything else that smacks of a formula.  Most pieces of land were not written to fit the forumla.

[Tom Huckaby]

Wonderful stuff.  I believe in breather holes just as Tom D. explained it.  It's been eye-opening to me how important these are as we've dissected Pacific Dunes in Tim Bert's thread.  And to me, the more a hole LOOKS like a "breather" but doesn't really play that way - ie can jump up and bite you if you take it too lightly - the cooler it is.

But a question for you, Tom.

Your definition of a 10 - on the very scale you created to measure worth of golf courses - would seem to dictate that the ideal has 18 fantastic holes - OR AT LEAST THAT'S HOW PEOPLE SEEM TO APPLY IT.

Remember the definition of a Doak 10 - "if you miss even one hole you would miss something worth seeing."  People apply that to courses and say, this hole or that hole is no big deal (or bad or whatever) thus it can't be a Doak 10.

Given "breather" holes are so important and play such a vital role in the overall course... is this an error in the definition, or are people applying it wrong, getting too caught up in the "if you miss one hole" thing?

I've tended to believe it's the latter... that is, not every hole has to be super great for a course to get a Doak 10... the "what you'd be missing" part on a hole not otherwise obviously great being the subtlety of it, how it fits in so well with the WHOLE of the course...

Is that correct?  And if so, might we adjust the Doak scale definition a bit, since it does get misapplied so often?

Just a thought.

TH

[TEPaul]

Dan and TomD:

Really fine posts there. The only thing I can see that may be left out---particularly in TomD's post is WHY do so many architects gravitate towards the "formulaic" when they reshape land and perhaps purposely remove real uniqueness (quirk et al)?

My answer is not provable but my sense has always been because most all architects are simply concerned about disapproval and criticism, and that leads to ever increasing "formulae" and standardization. In a sense it's a vicious cycle as inceasing standardization is then what more and more golfers demand.

In my opinion, it's a classic example of the cart leading the horse. Thankfully with a pretty good slice of architecture in recent times that vicious cycle seems to be diminishing and some "horses" are beginning to lead the "cart" again just as some of the best did in the beginning of the last century.

Obviously, it's not coincidental that those architects who are beginning to lead again are the same ones who've looked to the past for some of their inspirations.

However, perhaps a larger and deeper question is to ask what were those men who created those wonderful "horse leading the cart" courses back then looking to for their inspirations?

[Dan Kelly]

Thankfully ... some "horses" are beginning to lead the "cart" again just as some of the best did in the beginning of the last century.

Tom I --

Or just maybe the carts are still leading the horses -- but the horses are learning to walk backwards.

What we need are more backward-walking horses!

Dan

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:  You are right about the definition of a "10" in The Confidential Guide.  People are always quoting it to tell me why some course is worthy, or not worthy; and I really didn't mean it that way.  Ballybunion is one of the 10's on the Doak scale (and probably not the only one) where there are a couple of holes of which I don't think so highly ... but I still gave it a 10, so my definition must be not quite right.

I guess a better definition would be that every hole has to add something of value to the course as a whole.  However, I do not have enough cash on hand to buy back all of the Confidential Guides and make the edit.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H:  You are right about the definition of a "10" in The Confidential Guide.  People are always quoting it to tell me why some course is worthy, or not worthy; and I really didn't mean it that way.  Ballybunion is one of the 10's on the Doak scale (and probably not the only one) where there are a couple of holes of which I don't think so highly ... but I still gave it a 10, so my definition must be not quite right.

I guess a better definition would be that every hole has to add something of value to the course as a whole.  However, I do not have enough cash on hand to buy back all of the Confidential Guides and make the edit.

LOL!

Of course we cannot and shall not have all of the CG's edited... but given that the coin of the realm IN THIS FORUM for evaulating golf courses does seem to be your scale... and people do misapply this so often... how about one and all HERE give up on this "every hole must be fantastic" way of looking at a Doak 10, and rather look at it as Tom now explains (which I always kinda figured, btw - patting myself on the back):

10: Nearly perfect.  Every hole at the very least adds something of value to the course as a hole. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get.

Whaddya think?  Start here and perhaps others get the idea...

[Dan Kelly]

Or maybe: "... Even the breather holes can take your breath away."

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  You asked aloud,

"WHY do so many architects gravitate towards the "formulaic" when they reshape land and perhaps purposely remove real uniqueness (quirk et al)?

I agree with many of your comments about standardization and quirk.  You left out the fact that in addition to the modern architect, the modern CLIENT is much more concerned about the economics of his project and about not alienating the potential paying customers with features they might not like, certainly more than William & Henry Fownes were worried about it, anyway.

But I don't think that's the entire reason.  I think that the truth is the old architects had the advantage of NOT having seen so many other courses that they felt locked into a particular style and standard of design.  That's why some of the great courses were conceived by amateurs -- because they started with the dual advantages of not repeating their own past stuff, and not having seen so many other courses that they felt they had to conform.  All this conformity and increased peer pressure has happened since then.

I was trying to explain this the other day to someone who wants us to consider a project of totally blowing up and rebuilding a course.  I explained that for eighty years, everything that's happened around that course has reinforced the initial routing, so it's that much harder to come up with a new and different routing that really fits the ground.  It's the same for me when I try to route a course on property that someone else has looked at before -- I'd rather NOT see the other guys' routings, because it inhibits my brain from looking at how to do something different.  And it's just amazing to me, if I don't look at their routings until I'm finished, how different those routings are than what I have come up with on my own.

[Tom_Doak]

Alright, Huck.  You're my new editor.  Every time the discussion comes up from now forward, you are welcome to post the revised definiton.

Have fun with that. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Or maybe: "... Even the breather holes can take your breath away."

MUCH better phrasing.  I like it.  How about a combination? Or is it better with simply your phrase?  I leave it to the experts.

10: Nearly perfect.  Every hole at the very least adds something of value to the course as a hole; even the breather holes can take your breath away. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get.

[Tom Huckaby]

Alright, Huck.  You're my new editor.  Every time the discussion comes up from now forward, you are welcome to post the revised definiton.

Have fun with that. 

You send them to me.  I now have a task in life.

 

[TEPaul]

"It's the same for me when I try to route a course on property that someone else has looked at before -- I'd rather NOT see the other guys' routings, because it inhibits my brain from looking at how to do something different.  And it's just amazing to me, if I don't look at their routings until I'm finished, how different those routings are than what I have come up with on my own."


TomD:

I actually have two routings for that Ardrossan property---one by Coore and one by Hanse and neither one of them ever saw the other one. They are very different even though they did use some of the same landforms for holes but pretty much in reverse. There were a few areas Coore wouldn't go near because he said it was 'too easy to get stuck in them' but Hanse used them and fairly creatively it seems even if it was hard to tell with the trees. Essentially Coore just stayed away from those areas that had a lot of trees.
 
 
 

[Kalen Braley]

Ahh hell!!

Why can't we just adapt the Mary Poppins criteria for a Doak 10:

"Practically perfect in every way!!"   

[BCrosby]

TD says:

"Likewise ... I may well build a hole which some call a "breather".  I love the fact that good players EXPECT to make birdies on these holes, and because they do so less than 50% of the time, they can be affected psychologically just by making a par -- and particularly if their opponent makes a birdie."

Exactly so. Breather holes mess up your usual scoring expectations. Or better put, they can turn your normal scoring expectations upside down.
 
RTJ's mantra of "hard par, easy bogey" was so dominent for so long that it scared off a lot of innovation.  Turning the mantra upside down - as in "hard birdie, easy par" - takes some courage. That's going against the grain of what most golfers expect of good holes. Most golfers do think that relentless = good.  But breather holes are not a sign of weakness. They balance a good course.

For example, both ANGC and PVGC have several breather holes, depending on your definition. ANGC and PVGC are not great despite those holes. They are great - in part - because of those holes and the contrast they offer with other holes.

Bob   

[mark chalfant]

#4 and #5 at Longmeadow (MA)  are an ideal breather pair.But  neither thE 140y. fourth or the clever 318 can be taken for granted. On the fifth a gully or two slash through the fairway.

Then at the 6-9th  at LCC is more perilous with a drop shot par 3 that comes between three especially rigorous yet scenic par fours 

[Philippe Binette]

As far as no par 5, Elie in Scotland is 16 par-4 and 2 par-3, par 70 (if I remember it well./

I think that this discussion on breather hole and routing is great.

To me, I like a breather hole because it can give you momentum after a bad start, or can kill momentum if you play it bad and make bogey.
An example of breather would be a par four in the 360-370 range where there's seamingly no pressure of the tee, maybe a simple bunker, it would seem that when you get on the tee, you know you'll have 9-iron/wedge to the green no problem. I don't see driveable par 4s as breaher, unless they are really simple, because your mind have to take a decision, and dramatics are invloved out of decisions (to be or not to be)

As for routing, it's very subjective but I also think that you see what you want to see out of a routing. If you're looking to built a course where the Tour will come in 2-3 years, you're not looking the same way at the piece of ground in front of you then if you're trying to built a 6500 yards second course for a club.
At Sagebrush, if the owners insisted to have a walkable course, the course would be shorter, would not go to where the 12th hole is, maybe would not go down to 7th green and 8th hole. If you compare the virtual routing with the actual one, which is best ?.
Routing is really, really key on a great piece of ground, but what you do with the holes is just as important on a site where you have to move a lot of dirt to have golf on it.

[Ronald Montesano]

Doak 10 definition includes "Every hole at the very least adds something of value to the course as a hole."

How do we arrive at a standard interpretation of "something of value"?  We do not.  Something of value might run the gamut from a properly-situated stand of trees for bladder relief to the Valley of Sin (no, the two are not redundant.)

Breather holes?  Thumbs up, especially when you consider the Hurdzan-Fry and the MacKenzie approaches (and probably every other common-sense architect) of building holes that chops can bogey but scratch and plus golfers grind over to make pars and birdies (albeit from a completely different tee deck and angle).  Certainly you can adjust the journey from tee to green but once on the putting rug, there are no breather putts.  A bad putter is naked to the world.  Makes me anticipate Oakland Hills and the PGA for the putting.  I always despised that course, but now have a reason to watch.  Ironic in that I usually appreciate the full shots and turn away from the putting.

I played Niagara Falls (USA) CC on Thursday's Porter Cup media day.  The course is originally a Tillinghast, but has been massaged by RTJ and Cornish/Silva since its birth.  The tee to green journey, when flat and plain, is balanced with slick and slopey putting.  The entire first seven is a stretch of breather holes, but pin location and stimp speed can add strokes quickly.

I think that a site claimed to exclude good par fives is ridiculous.  A little imagination from the architect/designer will produce a different rendering.  To quote Mick and his boys, You simply cannot always get what you want... If the architect/designer claims that the property will not accommodate a balanced course, it is the human, not the earth, that must be abandoned.

Finally, take the aforementioned course and its preparations for the Porter Cup.  It was stated in the release that the rough is being grown a wee bit higher and thicker, beginning at the 260 yard from-the-tee point and around the greens.  Aren't all breather and groaner holes subject to maintenance, too?

[Adam Clayman]

I'd like to echo those who feel breather holes, left disrespected, can bite one's score and spit you out.

When courses change their configuration by switching the nines, or in the case of BWR, they often ruin the artful routing the designer had in mind.

[Tom_Doak]

Ronald M:

It's a little off topic, but I disagreed with your next-to-last paragraph:

"If the architect/designer claims that the property will not accommodate a balanced course, it is the human, not the earth, that must be abandoned."


That leads me to two questions:

1.  Balanced for whom? and

2.  Have you ever played Rye or Swinley Forest?  Both are terrific courses with no hole over 500 yards.  Sounds like you would dismiss them out of hand, in which case, it's YOUR OPINION that I would abandon.

[Ronald Montesano]

How'd you feel about the other paragraphs?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()