[Jeff Schley]

The Macdonald Biarritz was intended to be a test of a long par 3 shot, typically with a wood at that time a 220 or longer shot could even have been with a driver.  Thus, rolling the ball up through the swale was needed as nobody was going to be able to land a long or even mid iron next to the pin positions and hold.
If you wanted to have a modern day Biarritz to test pro's they would need to be close to 300 yards if you wanted them to roll the ball through the swale. I don't actually care about testing pro's so I'm not advocating lengthening them, but for even mid to low handicap players I like the idea of having the front and back portions green as if you miss on the opposite portion you have to hit a very fun putt!  To this extreme I recall the 16th at North Berwick, which while not a long par 3, Gate for me caused me to putt from the front portion through the swale to the back (no I wasn't excited about my short chip I duffed onto the wrong portion).

I know there aren't many publicly accessible Biarritz's around and appreciate the design concept of the green having a pronounced swale in the middle as it is very fun regardless of it is a long par 3 with bunkers on both sides, green or fairway on the front, etc.
Love the design concept and don't believe one better than the other, just put one on a course in some form as it makes the round memorable.

It would seem that regardless of which Biarritz version we are talking about and whether there is fairway or green in front that you can get in with a putter. Fairway in the front section gives the player the option to putt or pitch.

Yes, which is why I like them both to be greens as you can't pitch or chip (unless you are that guy who takes out a wedge on the green).

[Tim Martin]

The Macdonald Biarritz was intended to be a test of a long par 3 shot, typically with a wood at that time a 220 or longer shot could even have been with a driver.  Thus, rolling the ball up through the swale was needed as nobody was going to be able to land a long or even mid iron next to the pin positions and hold.
If you wanted to have a modern day Biarritz to test pro's they would need to be close to 300 yards if you wanted them to roll the ball through the swale. I don't actually care about testing pro's so I'm not advocating lengthening them, but for even mid to low handicap players I like the idea of having the front and back portions green as if you miss on the opposite portion you have to hit a very fun putt!  To this extreme I recall the 16th at North Berwick, which while not a long par 3, Gate for me caused me to putt from the front portion through the swale to the back (no I wasn't excited about my short chip I duffed onto the wrong portion).

I know there aren't many publicly accessible Biarritz's around and appreciate the design concept of the green having a pronounced swale in the middle as it is very fun regardless of it is a long par 3 with bunkers on both sides, green or fairway on the front, etc.
Love the design concept and don't believe one better than the other, just put one on a course in some form as it makes the round memorable.

It would seem that regardless of which Biarritz version we are talking about and whether there is fairway or green in front that you can get in with a putter. Fairway in the front section gives the player the option to putt or pitch.

Yes, which is why I like them both to be greens as you can't pitch or chip (unless you are that guy who takes out a wedge on the green).

I’m a fan of Yale’s all green version because of its uniqueness. That said most versions have fairway in the front section allowing a myriad of different shots to get back to the hole. Why limit those option’s to just a putter?

[Jeff Schley]

The Macdonald Biarritz was intended to be a test of a long par 3 shot, typically with a wood at that time a 220 or longer shot could even have been with a driver.  Thus, rolling the ball up through the swale was needed as nobody was going to be able to land a long or even mid iron next to the pin positions and hold.
If you wanted to have a modern day Biarritz to test pro's they would need to be close to 300 yards if you wanted them to roll the ball through the swale. I don't actually care about testing pro's so I'm not advocating lengthening them, but for even mid to low handicap players I like the idea of having the front and back portions green as if you miss on the opposite portion you have to hit a very fun putt!  To this extreme I recall the 16th at North Berwick, which while not a long par 3, Gate for me caused me to putt from the front portion through the swale to the back (no I wasn't excited about my short chip I duffed onto the wrong portion).

I know there aren't many publicly accessible Biarritz's around and appreciate the design concept of the green having a pronounced swale in the middle as it is very fun regardless of it is a long par 3 with bunkers on both sides, green or fairway on the front, etc.
Love the design concept and don't believe one better than the other, just put one on a course in some form as it makes the round memorable.

It would seem that regardless of which Biarritz version we are talking about and whether there is fairway or green in front that you can get in with a putter. Fairway in the front section gives the player the option to putt or pitch.

Yes, which is why I like them both to be greens as you can't pitch or chip (unless you are that guy who takes out a wedge on the green).

I’m a fan of Yale’s all green version because of its uniqueness. That said most versions have fairway in the front section allowing a myriad of different shots to get back to the hole. Why limit those option’s to just a putter?

I like all the Biarritz's as well and appreciate them in all forms, including on par 4's.  If both sections are green you have more options for hole locations and distances which can vary up to 3-4 clubs.  You also demand a more precise shot to the green if you know if you are short you could have to putt 30 yards, or by contrast since you have a front section that is pinnable if you are long also a tough lag putt.
Also a variation on Biarritz's is the depth of the swale, I really appreciate the deep swale like a Fox Chapel #17 or Yale.

[Jon Cavalier]

As a template fan and hunter, I’ve played a bunch of Biarritz holes, and though I preferred the all green versions at first, the Fishers version (uphill, with the front maintained as firm fairway) is my favorite - you can run a ball through as intended, and it’s beautiful.


The best modern version I’ve played is the 8th at Old Macdonald. It’s downhill, but the front portion of the green is slopes toward the back, which facilitates a shot that rolls down through the swale. It’s a terrific take on the concept updated for the modern game.


The 13th at Ohoopee is another great modern version with an interesting twist - the swale is green, but the “front” portion is fairway. So you get a bit of the best of both worlds.


I’m a big fan of the 9th at Yale architecturally. But I do think it’s a shame that they rarely pin it on the back section (I think I’ve seen it back there once in a dozen plays), and because the front tends to play a little soft. But I love the hole.


Ultimately, I agree that there is no single mandated way a Biarritz template should play. You have versions like Forsgate and Greenbrier with flat greens and big swales that don’t really allow for the running shot, but that have the added dimension of being pinnable in the swale. You have the all green versions like Yale, Chicago, Shoreacres, St. Louis, Westhampton and Camargo that allow 150 foot putts and a variety of different pin locations and yardages. And you have the half green, half fairway versions like Fishers, Mid Ocean and Piping Rock that will always be pinned in the back. It’s a versatile template design, and I like that.

[Tim Martin]

Wexford Plantation has a cool version that plays as a par four so the drive dictates the angle of approach and club selection into the green.

[Jeff Schley]

As a template fan and hunter, I’ve played a bunch of Biarritz holes, and though I preferred the all green versions at first, the Fishers version (uphill, with the front maintained as firm fairway) is my favorite - you can run a ball through as intended, and it’s beautiful.


The best modern version I’ve played is the 8th at Old Macdonald. It’s downhill, but the front portion of the green is slopes toward the back, which facilitates a shot that rolls down through the swale. It’s a terrific take on the concept updated for the modern game.


The 13th at Ohoopee is another great modern version with an interesting twist - the swale is green, but the “front” portion is fairway. So you get a bit of the best of both worlds.


I’m a big fan of the 9th at Yale architecturally. But I do think it’s a shame that they rarely pin it on the back section (I think I’ve seen it back there once in a dozen plays), and because the front tends to play a little soft. But I love the hole.


Ultimately, I agree that there is no single mandated way a Biarritz template should play. You have versions like Forsgate and Greenbrier with flat greens and big swales that don’t really allow for the running shot, but that have the added dimension of being pinnable in the swale. You have the all green versions like Yale, Chicago, Shoreacres, St. Louis, Westhampton and Camargo that allow 150 foot putts and a variety of different pin locations and yardages. And you have the half green, half fairway versions like Fishers, Mid Ocean and Piping Rock that will always be pinned in the back. It’s a versatile template design, and I like that.

Jon I know you have a lot of experience playing the Biarritz, do any you know of have a take on the Biarritz with a Redan run off? I   I

[Jon Cavalier]

The 4th at Quogue Field Club is a “Biarredan” hybrid.


Here’s a look at the green:

[Bill Crane]

Jon:
Was that green always that way, or did Ian Andrew add that green design?
It is unusual, like the 8th green as Yale.

[Ronald Montesano]

Thanks to everyone who calmly explained why my insinuation was flawed. The first of 2 B that I have played, was at Fox Chapel. I shot Camargo, but did not have access to play the course. Yale is my 2nd B. Actually, that's not true. FC, then Y, and then Forsgate. So 3. I played FC so well, as I did not know what I faced. Way before my GCA days. Ran the long iron through and almost up to the back plateau. Ended up in the swale and 2 putted. I have played Y 2x, and have faced a front pin each time. Good to know that the back is pinnable. I intended to puttz around up there each time, but had golfers right behind, so could not.


Does the rear have to be raised above the front plateau? If not, is there a reversible Biarritz anywhere?

[Jon Cavalier]

Thanks to everyone who calmly explained why my insinuation was flawed. The first of 2 B that I have played, was at Fox Chapel. I shot Camargo, but did not have access to play the course. Yale is my 2nd B. Actually, that's not true. FC, then Y, and then Forsgate. So 3. I played FC so well, as I did not know what I faced. Way before my GCA days. Ran the long iron through and almost up to the back plateau. Ended up in the swale and 2 putted. I have played Y 2x, and have faced a front pin each time. Good to know that the back is pinnable. I intended to puttz around up there each time, but had golfers right behind, so could not.


Does the rear have to be raised above the front plateau? If not, is there a reversible Biarritz anywhere?

The rear does not have to be raised above the front, and in fact, with modern equipment, this is almost always going to prevent the “run it through the swale” play.


Old Macdonald is an example of a Biarritz where the back is lower than the front. Here’s a look:

[Mike Sweeney]

With the help of Google Earth (use Chrome Browser), I pulled the following elevations:


https://earth.google.com/web/@41.3235922,-72.98564266,73.02091439a,534.18525769d,35y,325.37385238h,0t,0r/data=ChQaEgoKL20vMDR6ZzB0OBgBIAEoAg



Yale Back Tee = 72m


Yale Front of the Front part of the green = 62m
Swale = 60m
Yale Back of the Back part of the green = 62m




Fishers Island Back Tee = 7m


FI Front of the Front part of the fairway/green = 7m
Swale = could not get a good read
FI Back of the Back part of the green = 17m

[Tim Gavrich]

The 9th at Yale seems to have an advantage over most other Biarritz holes where the front part of the complex is maintained as green, because a front pin on that particular hole is made compelling because of the pond in front and the feeling of hitting over a chasm (the same one that gets the round off to a visually arresting start, therefore bringing a sense of closure to an incredible front nine). That said, I think it's easy to feel shortchanged whenever the pin is not in the back.


Anyone else played the inverted Biarritz at Sanctuary Cove in GA? I think it's a green template that deserves wider implementation:

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()