The Hole Series - The reachable par five – #18 at Pebble Beach

I opened this series with this statement, “All courses should have at least one – all players look forward to playing them – the biggest difference is what is now defined as reachable.” It was for a reason, and that is that technology has taken a few holes that were originally designed as three shot par fives and made them reachable –and much more interesting than they once were.

Pebble Beach has arguably the best finishing hole in golf, but the advancements in technology have made this an even better finish, now that players can try take on the hole in two mighty shots. So let’s look at what makes this hole great – other than the ocean.

The tee shot begins on a peninsula jutting out into the Pacific Ocean. The player is given a simple and enticing choice from the tee. How much are you going to try and cut off to shorten the hole. The way the tee shot works; the player can’t help but try and take to aggressive a route - often to find his shot in the ocean now having to hit three. The player who can cut the corner can be rewarded with a shot at the green.

Two architects notes before I continue on the approach. First the “stupid” tree (and second tree planted behind it) in the fairway is ridiculous and completely unnecessary to the hole. It only publishes a shot to centre of the fairway – huh? Second I must comment that the approach shot going for the green is very low percentage because of the size and the slight cant of the green – but that has never stopped anyone from chasing glory before has it?

The approach shot is made by the massive pine (recently replaced with one from the 1st hole) that knocks down players bailing right. The green is open from the second shot but players have to skirt the tree on he approach shot from the lay-up area. The left side approach of the green is bunkered and the ocean is hard up against the left side of the green. Finally to place a premium on the approach a deep bunker covers the right front of the green – the bails side! - meaning a rolling approach must flirt with the ocean on the left. A tough approach for those long enough to give it a go.

The green site is tiny and precise – even for the lay-up approach - but there are plenty of recovery options from the bunkers and the expansive rough right of the green site. The 18th at Pebble Beach was one of the best 18 holes in golf, now it is also one of the best “reachable” par fives too.

The other one that would have profiled was the 13th at Cruden Bay

Some other ones I considered:

11th at TPC
11th at Tobacco Road
1st at Royal County Down

I can't pick a great Canadian short five off the top of my head, so I'm open to suggestions.

The 13th at Cruden Bay: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/hole-series-reachable-par-five-13-at_07.html

Article in Golf Architecture about St. George's

This was my article published on St. George's restoration in Paul Daley's Book, Golf Architecture, A Worldwide Perspective, Volume 3

Interview in Fairway Magazine

An interview from May

Hole Series #3 from Score Magazine

This was published in September of 2006 in Score Golf Magazine.

The Hole Series - The reachable par five – # 6 at Western Gailes

The diagonal carry line off the tee





At only 498 yards the 6th at Western Gailes, known as “Lapcock” seems like a pushover on the card, but this unique use of the ground has lead to one of the most entertaining and interesting short par fives in golf. I have the rare opportunity of walking you through the hole slowly thanks to a golf picture site I recently was pointed to called http://www.golfarchitecturepictures.com/




The big dune hides the green






The tee shot is one of many great diagonal carries at Western Gailes where the player must hit over the sea grass and native fescue to find the fairway. The aggressive player must hug the right side of the fairway and risk a series of deep hollows full of gnarly fescue grass to get the best angle to go for the green. The perfect shot is a slight fade off the tee, but the average player can still play safely left if they are willing to accept three shots into the green.




The lower fairway where lay-ups are played to




A successful tee shot leaves you with an interesting approach to a green you can not see. Do you play safely over the rise and to the right to lay-up, take it right over the highest dune trying to land it softly in the hollow that contains the green, or do you play the ideal and most effective approach with a running draw around the dune using the natural contour to feed the ball to the green. Like all great holes anything is possible, but missing the green anywhere but short right leaves the player trying to get up and down from the fescue.





The green with the central spine and high right side



The pitch into the green and recovery shots around the green are complicated by the sharp contours of the putting surface. The bail side is to the right and is wide open, but the green flashes up high on that side and this makes any approach from that area nearly impossible since a ball will tend to roll right across most of the green no matter how delicately the ball is played.




Looking back at the wild rumples in the fairway





The fun of the hole is all the natural rolls and hollows that influence play from tee to green. There are very few level lies anywhere including the green itself. The hole is proof that great contours have as much value as well placed bunkers in dictating the strategy of the hole.

The 18th at Pebble Beach - better Now it's reachable? http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/hole-series-reachable-par-five-18-at.html

The Hole Series - The reachable par five – #13 at Augusta

All courses should have at least one – all players look forward to playing them – the biggest difference is what is now defined as reachable. I’ve broken my personal rule with my first selection and picked a hole that I have not played, but like you, I’ve seen around 100 times in detail. My opener to the series is the 13th at Augusta National. So what makes this hole arguably the best short five in golf?

The tee shot has to be shaped from right to left to get around the corner for a chance to go for the green. The golfers who hit the ball straight always find themselves in the trees on the far side of the dogleg. So players must turn the ball over to find the heavily canted landing area and open up the next choice. Only a player able to control a strong draw can flirt with the creek, hard against the inside of the dogleg, to leave a flat lie and the perfect angle into the green.












A player who finds the fairway now faces one of the tougher shots in all of golf. The shot calls for a left to right approach since the creek crosses diagonally in front of the green and down the entire right side. The safe play is to the front left since there is recovery from this area, chasing any other pin becomes a gamble that you won’t find the creek. This is an important time to mention that the creek, and the potential recovery from the creek, which encourages more players to try the shot than should. The last item is the stance in the fairway. The approach is hit from a right to left lie for a majority of the play to the green, so players are trying to cut a ball from a hook lie. Even the lay-up area has the same cant which creates the risk of hitting you approach fat into the creek.














Finally, perfection continues right to the green itself. The swale and bunkers long means a downhill shot with the creek looming in the background – finding yourself in this position becomes a play for par. The green itself is severely sloped so that only putts are made on the two flatter areas of the green – both are tight to the creek and the shaved bank that leads into it. The old green was even more dynamic with better and bolder contours that were removed for faster green speeds strictly for the Masters.

The hole is very short, offers many Birdies and Eagles during the Masters, but inevitably a bogie or double bogie for one of the main contenders coming in. A perfect short par five.

A discussion of the 6th at Western Gailes: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/hole-series-reachable-par-five-6-at.html

The short par five

The approach shot on the very short and very dnagerous 11th at Tobacco Road

Most of the greatness in golf architecture occurs in the “par and a half holes”.

If I ask you to name a great short par four or reachable par five, you can probably list off at least dozen in less than a minute. Why? It is because these are the holes that we look forward to playing the most in a round. As stated before the short four provides a weaker player the chance to make a four and a strong player the opportunity to make a birdie. The short five doesn’t quite work the same way, but is looked forward to even more by most players because of the “potential” that exist only on this hole. That potential is a real opportunity to make a putt for an Eagle. No other hole in golf holds out the same hope.

So know that we understand the psychological difference of this hole from all others. We can also understand why most people will name almost all reachable holes when listing there favorite par fives.

So what makes a great short five? The short version is: when the element of risk is well balanced with the clear opportunity to score. There is nothing more pleasing than standing on a tee, or in the middle of a fairway, and weighing the risks of the next shot against the benefits of making one great swing. The short five clearly plays into or against the player’s ego, and that is where the architect must step in to take full advantage. The ego is almost every player’s greatest weakness. It often leads the player to some of the worst decisions particularly when the player is given the opportunity for glory. Most players just can’t help themselves. A short par five is a great opportunity to make the game fun for all players, but offers an equally interesting chance to really push the strong player into making bad decisions and big mistakes. Like all good ½ par holes, it becomes an equalizer through differing expectations of the players.

I personally think the great short fives presents the following:

1. offers up a clear opportunity to the player
2. invites risk taking
3. offers multiple options for play
4. demands two exceptional shots trying to get home in two
5. severely penalizes a missed shot from aggressive play

Over the next four days I will examine some of the best the game has to offer, starting with the most famous short five of them all; and I would argue the best the game has to offer. I’ll like finish with a list of the best on Friday. One I really wanted to profile had no photos available anywhere.

A discussion of the 13th at Augusta: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/hole-series-reachable-par-five-13-at.html

I won’t ever Build….A Double Green or Island Green

Island Greens

The 17th at the TPC at Sawgrass is one of the greatest holes ever developed in golf. It is also one of the worst concepts ever to be copied by architects. Admittedly this idea actually goes back to Herbert Strong at Ponte Vedra Golf Club and Pete’s version was not the first – but it is the ultimate version of the idea. As a one off, the 17th is an exceptional hole and ideal for the tournament format it serves. It teaches us a lot about nerves, psychology and finally shows us a way into the players head; and not just for that hole, but the entire round. Think about how much the impact would be reduced if the hole were the 3rd or 4th.

Now let’s look at the island green as a concept. The concept has no recovery unless the island is expanded beyond the green perimeter – although even that is semantics to me. Every shot is either hit or miss the island – not long on options is it? Think about this, the approach shot is a forced carry. The approach shot has no safe play or alternative route to reach the green surface by skirting around trouble. A player could easily find themselves in a position where they can not finish the hole and potentially the round! All the great holes that I have shown you over this year have at least the opportunity to recover – this is one of the few exceptions in architecture (architorture?). My personal belief is that recovery is a key component of the game. There is a fine line between extremely difficult and unfair – and this crosses “my” line.

I played in an event this spring that involved an island green on a private course in North Carolina. Most of us picked up after a couple balls in the water. How is that fun on a daily basis for the average player? As much as I enjoyed the 17th at TPC, the thought of playing it daily is dreadful. It works well as a resort experience, given the circumstance of the annual TPC Championship.

Double Greens

Yes they work at St. Andrew’s to create one of the greatest experiences in golf.

OK, now name a second course where it doesn’t feel forced as a concept? I can offer you lots of examples of double greens, but each one seems even more contrived than the last – doesn’t it.

The concept is fraught with problems and compromises that leads to mediocrity. The concept opens up all sorts of liability issues that should be avoided at all costs, so the only way to overcome this is to make adjustments for safety. One method is a huge green, but the expense of this is too much with the modern conditioning and water requirements. The second method is to bring the holes in on opposite lines or create enough distance to separate the approach shots but over clubbing and skulling will bring safety back to the forefront. The last is to keep the green joined but “seperate” the green into two distinct areas through grading and using bunkers in between, but these look incredibly unnatural and forced. No matter what anyone has tried to date the results are less than what two greens could have accomplished.


The double greens at Grand Cypress, I've seen this concept at least 20 times!

So why does St. Andrew’s work? There are very few settings that have enough scale to allow that large a feature to blend in; it’s the vistas and space at St. Andrew’s that make them fit. The greens are so massive that the risk of being hit is minimized, and many greens encourage a ground approach by there very nature and conditioning. The main reason it works well there is history – we all accept it as the way it has always been – but we can’t borrow that sense of history when we copy the concept; it must stand on its own merits and that’s why the concept almost always fails.

I won’t ever build.....A Split Fairways

The 9th at Kinloch an expensive concept that doesn't work

This is a short week so I’ll concentrate on two ideas that I won’t use and why.

The first is a split fairway.

From Riviera’s famous 8th, through to the 7th at Valhalla (used for the PGA), there are many examples to choose from. While modern golf has tried to present this concept numerous times as a source of option, I can’t think of any example where I see the need in having a “full” second option. The problem is that all these holes have a smarter route and good players play the percentages.

The 8th at Riviera, why would you ever go left off the tee?

When we look at the 8th hole at Riviera, the left fairway has a tough tee shot that must be shaped to find the fairway which is full of great undulation. When the Fazio team "returned" the right fairway, the tee shot required no shaping of the shot and further encouraged the player with a flatter landing. There is no reason for the PGA players to play to the left any more. Riviera has also lost one of the best tee shots on the course as a result!

The 7th at Valhala, when you can get home going right, why would you go left ever?

The 7th at Valhalla is the ultimate strategic dog. The left side alternative was to an island in a lake where anything but the perfect shot was a disaster. Nicklaus got rid of the lake and replaced it with an island of fairway surrounded by sand (as the image shows), because nobody during the PGA tried the island route. Why doesn’t it work? There is no reward for making the shot. Right allows the player to play around the trouble, with the only real loss being length. Players are less likely to be able to get home in two, but with all the length some have this is still possible! There is far too much risk going left for so little reward, and in this case the smart play is truly the only play. Everyone went around during the PGA – even Tiger.

Even Walter Travis drew plans where the fairway alternated like stepping stones with rough in between. The idea is that players play conservative or aggressively to each island in order to gain an advantage on the hole. There are two problems with this concept. Wind ruins this concept by making carries unreasonable or too easy. More importantly it penalizes the average player far more than a strong player since they may be forced to lay-up to avoid rough on “any” shot. Even a few modern courses are based upon this concept, and all they do is increase the number of forced carries that a player has to deal with, since most like Kinlock have a creek in between.

The argument for the concept I expect to get:

I know people will point to the 15th at Pine Barrens and say that hole definitely works. What they miss is this is not a split fairway. This is a short route and a safe route, which is not quite the same as a "full" alternative fairway. Fazio offered a direct and risky line "to the green" and a safe play for everyone else. This concept works because the risk and the reward are a "fair choice"; and a play at the small approach fairway is actually a play for the green.

Another example you might suggest is the use of a diagonal line of bunkers that split the fairway. The 2nd landing at the 13th at Osprey Valley Heathlands is a great example. There players can avoid the carry by playing low and to the right, or gamble to make the carry for an an easier approach to the green. This is not a split fairway either, but an overlap in the fairway extensions reinforcing the risk and reward strategy of carrying the bunkers. And yes there is a difference.

I have player numerous courses with split fairways and not one of them was near as interesting or "playable" as a hole with a central hazard. That hole takes on the elite player and adds playability to the average player; isn’t that a much better option?

The Year in Review – Part Five – A Philosophical Look at My Business

The restored creek and bunkers at the Cutten Club










The first year is essentially finished and that’s why this becomes such a great time to look back at what was accomplished, and to have a look forward at what I want to achieve in the years ahead. When I started out in January, I produced a full business plan and one day in the middle of working on it, I decided that I really should write down my long term goal. This is what I wrote:

"I want to have a small boutique firm known for the quality of its work. My aim is to develop a clientele that I enjoy working with and to work on the courses that I admire. I will continue to actively preserve important works of golf course architecture for future generations to study. I will give myself the freedom to choose work so that I still have time for my family. My number one goal is to develop a few new courses where I will show that Canadian golf needs to return completely to the ideas of the Golden Age if there is going to be a new course built that finally rivals Thompson’s best."

In looking back I have achieved many of the goals I had set out to accomplish. I have enough work going forward that I can now be selective about the projects that I take on and the people I choose to work with. While I’m in a position where I could potentially expand, I’m going to stay small and selective rather than becoming like Tom, Doug or Graham. My original mantra was less work and more time spent producing a higher quality of work; that is still my philosophy going forward.

Obviously I have not developed a new course but I am confident that someone will see me as an opportunity to build something a little better than what’s being currently built. Since my philosophy involves less disruption to the natural site, they will also enjoy the benefit of a much more economical build while still getting all the great Golden Age design philosophies that have been proven to build better courses. I will build great courses that are also great businesses models; I won’t be building any monuments that have no economic viability.

The more I write, the more I have become interested in writing. In particular, I have always believed that nobody has yet written anything definitive on the golf architecture of Stanley Thompson. My interest is not about writing a book, in fact I don’t have the ability to do that, but in eventually sharing what I have learnt. I’ve been considering the idea of an essay on Thompson’s evolution as a designer. I have almost all the research that I require, but I’m too busy to take this on.

Blog will return between Christmas and New years family dependent.

The Year in Review – Part Four – The Blog

I began this little exercise begrudgingly cursing Robert Thompson all the way for suggesting this was something that I should do. I was dumb enough to be initially excited which resulted in me sending out emails to friends and people in the golf industry to let them know I was going to write a regular blog and that they should check it out. While I was long on opinion, I was short on writing talent, and quickly wondered if I was going to make a fool of myself.

While I still occasionally curse this blog, I must give full credit to Robert since this turned out to be an outstanding idea. My original belief was this blog would be used to promote my ideas, my business and my views; but really it evolved into a completely different outlet. I do use the blog as an ongoing place to let people know what I’m up to, but it’s now become more of a place for personal expression.

I’ve always had something to say and this gave me an opportunity to finally speak my mind on certain ideas and aspects of golf architecture. I found that the more I got into the blog, the more I became serious about writing on golf course architecture, the more I needed to read and research things to explain them to an audience. This helped me collect my thoughts and fully understand what I wanted to do in future projects. I gave me a much clearer picture of what I liked and what I didn’t like. It eventually lead to a clarity for what ideas in golf course architecture that I wanted to apply and has lead to me being better prepared to design a new course.

There were other lessons along the way. I found out quite quickly that I couldn’t say exactly what I thought. This still kills me at times since I’m fairly open and candid about what I think. Tom Doak’s style in the confidential guide was the original intent, but I eventually realized that I could not afford to be that candid in the end. I also discovered blogging has the grammar police and people expect the same quality of writing found in any printed publication. At first I was pissed off – but they won out – since I edited more to avoid them.

A regular blog like this is truly like writing a short column or articles a day. This was pressure that I didn’t expect and coupled with the constant search for fresh ideas, pressure that occasional makes me want to pack it all in. I think my strength was when I found big ideas to concentrate on. Looking at individual holes, hole types, or the basic elements of golf architecture has lead to the best of my writing. The 10 courses you should study was my personal favorite idea for a series –and it must have been a good idea –since it lead to a 4 page article in Travel + Leisure Golf that I’m quite proud of.

I plan to continue on exactly as I currently do even after I finish the year I committed to. I hope to eventually take people through the actual design of a course - on line – I just need that project (and that will come). You may get an advance look at this process since it looks like I will need to produce a series of holes this spring for a major renovation project. Till then I will finish the hole series and also put out a series on what I won’t do and why

Tomorrow: the final installment at my year looking back - my business in review

The Year in Review – Part Three – The Highlights!

Top Golf Architecture Story

No question the number one story in Golf Architecture is Tiger Woods Golf Design. I think this story represents the culmination of Tiger Woods as a brand. He will be paid more to design courses than anyone else in history without ever showing and any aptitude for the art…unless hitting a ball well counts. Golf continues to get more expensive and more exclusive as a result.








The Course You Hope Never Gets Built

I always wanted to see waterfalls and sand dunes combined and now I may finally get my wish. But wait there’s more…. “The Donald” has already suggested that this yet to be designed course will eventually hold a British Open! Wasn’t the K Club for the Ryder Cup bad enough? Trump claims his mother is distantly Scottish and that is why this is the perfect place for Trump International; all I can say is thank god he has no Canadian heritage. Here’s hoping the environmentalists or bankers kill this before he destroys another patch of prime landscape.


The Article that moved me the most

“For me Golf is at its best when I can feel the ground and the wind and here the swish of the clubhead, when my mind is pliant, ready and open, when I’m in tune with my surroundings. That’s when I have my perfect moments.”

Taken from a paragraph from Lorne Rubenstein’s piece called “On the Edge” printed in Travel + Leisure Golf. The story had a profound effect on me much like James Dodson’s “Final Rounds.” I got me thinking about what was important and what were the moments and places that I enjoyed the most. I enjoyed them a little bit more after reading his elegant prose.

Best Investigative Article

Robert Thompson’s expose of the RCGA was fascinating for what it brought to light, but even more so for the reaction it caused from the RCGA. It came at a time where people were openly questioning the RCGA and Stephen Ross in particular. Some of the quotes were startling and the revelations were often stunning even for me. It certainly stirred up Canadian Golf like no other article has in a long time; funny enough I think this was good for the RCGA because they are trying to become a more transparent organization.

The One I Didn’t Believe

The IPSOS Reid participation survey that the RCGA trotted out to say the game was growing ran flat into the face of an obvious decline in golf in Ontario. With most courses reporting a major decline in rounds this made most people question the results. When 25% of all players play in Ontario and all courses were feeling the pinch, how could they have got the result they did. Unless….the sample was small and represented every region equally which did not give proportional representation…..which created a convenient result.


Consistently the Best Golf Web Site

This will be renamed the Geoff Shackelford.com award! I honestly don’t think there is a better source of information on golf. When you add in his sharp wit and terrific research, you get a wonderful dose of what’s going on a daily basis combined with hilarious opinion. Geoff is the USGA’s “inconvenient truth” writing about what ails the game, he is the voice of reason when the ruling bodies have lost their way.

The Confidential Guide to Canadian Golf

No blog is like Robert Thompson’s “Going For the Green” which provides more inside information into the going’s on in Canadian Golf than any other source. I find him funny, maddening, informative, and fearless. You won’t always agree with what he writes, but it certainly never boring to read either.

Best Architectural Quote I read all year

From Geoff Shackelford’s daily quotes: “when he is continually made to feel the birch-rod of the rough with its bunkers for every wayward shot, golf becomes an exercise of caution rather than of courage.” Max Behr

Tomorrow: a look back at the year with my blog

The Year in Review – Part Two – Architecture

When you look at Charles Blair MacDonald and Hugh Wilson, you realize that before they created The National Golf Links of America and Merion (East) - their respective masterpieces - they spent a great deal of time looking at other courses and other architects work. Both traveled abroad to look at the best holes on the finest courses, they evaluated the strategies, and they incorporated the best ideas in their own work. In that spirit what I wanted to do was present a list of what influenced me this year.

The Architect Who Sets My Bar

Up until recently I felt that Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw (C&C) were the benchmark for the best work currently being done. Their work at courses like Sand Hills and Friar’s Head has influenced a countless number of young designers into paying closer attention to the ground. Friar’s Head is a great example of not beginning a course until the right routing is found and not settling for anything less. Sand Hills is simply the landmark course for our generation of designers!

Over the last ten years Tom Doak has paid close attention to what Bill Coore was doing and there is a clear influence in his work. While there were signs of greatness in High Pointe, there is no question that Pacific Dunes marked Tom’s coming out party as a major force in golf architecture. Where he has really begun to shine is with his most recent work where he has shown his willingness to take even more risk than Bill Coore. He has begun to try new styles, has successful dealt with all types of sites and has continued to let his imagination and the imagination of his staff bring more new ideas to the table. I believe Tom just getting started, the 4th course at Bandon will be one to watch, and for that matter so will anything else he does.

The Course That Altered My Thinking

There is no doubt that Mike Strantz’s Tobacco Road was a course cut from a different cloth. I have never seen the combination of intimidation and opportunity so masterfully combined together. The course is maddening, exciting, fun, and frustrating all at the same time; but once you finish you can’t wait to play it again. As an architect you admire his audacity to build something so different and controversial. I admire the man for having a real philosophy. He built his course to look very difficult but actually play a little easier than they appeared so that you had a bigger thrill when you made a great shot. I commend Mike for talking so many chances from intentional blindness to very wild greens he certainly pushed the envelope better than anyone else. I’m sad at his passing for the genius to come and the family left behind.

The Most Interesting Feature I Saw

I still think that Gil Hanse is the wild card to me. There is an immense amount of talent inside Gil, and yet there are things that I occasionally don’t get with his work. He is the one most capable of finding a completely fresh idea that will catch people off guard. I went out to see Castle Stewart near Inverness, Scotland and was blown away by the very unique bunker detailing that he was going to use. The idea was to make bunkering that looked like the famous Hutcheson photos from the turn of the century. Imagine sod walls with broken edges. Castle Stewart is going to be completely shaped like Kingsbarns, and where Kingsbarns occasionally looked too modern (shaped) to be a true links, Gil is going to extremes to make sure he doesn’t have the same issues. This is the single course I most look forward to seeing done. I think it will change his career overnight.

The Year in Review – Part One - Professional Golf

This week will be my year in review beginning with my feelings towards the current state of professional golf.

I watched a grand total of three tournaments this year and none from start to finish. I used to watch around 20 tournaments a year but have grown to hate the professional game. “Bomb and gouge” has lead to “dull and unwatchable” for me. I miss the style of professional golf that got me interested in the game where players with skill had as much chance as players with power. I miss the banter I began with from with players like Chi Chi, Jake and the Merry Mex, now each player seems to spend as much time with a media relations expert as they do with a swing teacher. When I saw last weeks article on Jim Furyk in the Wall Street Journal talking about him as a small corporation – I knew why and where the game had changed – and why I no longer watched.











This isn’t the first time a profession sport has lost me – professional tennis was the first one I remember. I was a huge tennis fan as a teenager. I rooted against Ilie Nastase and Jimmy Connors but loved watching them play. I loved the antics and game of John McEnroe trying to overcome the incredible skill and dominance of Bjorn Borg. The game was full of strategy, counterpunching and even the strength of a big serve was not enough to beat “the complete player”. Then the game changed – the larger racket and tennis academy created a game dominated by the serve – I watched for a while before giving up. I lost interest with that style of game and the new players like Lendl that lacked the personality to carry the game forward.

Hockey has been a lifetime passion for me and watching it was another of my favorite pastimes. Hockey is another game that I’m only just trying to return to after 5 years of refusing to watch. To give you perspective of how into watching hockey I was, I participated in a rotisserie league and hockey pools for 20 years before giving up watching altogether. I gave up on the game when coaching - and the neutral zone trap in particular - removed the need for skill from the game. As the game got slower and defense ruled the thinking of everyone involved – the general manager made it worse by only drafting the biggest and strongest players ignoring smaller players with superior skill. “Dump and chase” removed the need for skating, stick-handling and passing. They finally fixed the game in order to bring back the fans after the ridiculous strike last year. Now we talk about Ovechkin and Crosby rather than the Left wing lock.













This year I stopped following the PGA tour. I don’t care for any of the players, I hate the present version of the game, and now even the venues are awful. The rise of the tournament player courses and the use of horrible layouts for majors have been the final nail in the coffin. Courses such as Valhalla, Hazeltine, Atlanta Athletic Club, The K Club, Medinah, just to name a few only feed into the worst aspects that professional golf has to offer. Not to mention they have all been selected for financial reasons rather than quality venues. Even Augusta is not quite as interesting down the stretch as it once was. I’m waiting for the Tour Players Course in LA so that I can finally stop watching completely.

The 9th at Jasper Park – Cleopatra

“Oh, was Thornton (Sir Harry Thornton of the Canadian National Railway) ever upset with me! Harry and I played golf at Jasper for the first time together, and when we arrived at the ninth tee he stopped and just stared down at the hole. I had a good idea what he was starring at. He had finally noticed the hole was modeled after a woman reclined on her back (laughing)! Well, Harry blew a gasket! He said, “Mr. Thompson, we have been friends for many years. I never thought you would have the audacity to do this to the Canadian National!” I had no choice other than to make some minor alterations to the hole, to hide the woman’s form! The hole no longer resembles a woman, but it kept its name!"
- from interview with Stanley Thompson found on Golfclubatlas -

That story contains real quotes, but is largely a stitched together account of what happened to Cleopatra after the opening. In the open day photos, Cleopatra is the one hole not clearly shown. Too bad!













So what makes this hole a great long par three? For one, Stanley Thompson lined the hole up with the most spectacular peak in Jasper, Pyramid Mountain. He created a hole that drops close to 80 feet from tee to green. He used a green site that sits on a plateau, that hangs above the valley 20-30 feet further down. The shot is fun since missing right, left or long is severely penalized; the smart play is short and bounced in. Where the fun begins is which route to play to bounce it in. Most now like to fly the ball all the way to the green and risk being off line, but the original intent was to fly the second bunker and use the natural slope to feed the ball onto the green.














This is not a conventional use of land, otherwise the green would be at the bottom and the hole would likely have become a par four or five. He did a number of things that I think were very clever. There is no question that there is some suggestive forms to the hole and the bunkering around the green certainly resembles hair! While you can’t see a woman’s form, you certainly begin to imagine that you do. His bunker placement is critical in giving the fairway a beautiful sweep left, then right and back left at the green. Very few architects have achieved this graceful a contour. By building up the green site into a plateau, he created a perfect peninsula green site. His real genius was to have the green widest in the front and narrow in the back and straight on to play. The average player looking to bounce it in has the simplest task – carry the front bunker. The aggressive player has to control the ball from going long which is not easy at altitude. Even the green itself has some fantastic contours to make putting a treat.












The green site is the key to the hole, on a downhill slope; he created a plateau part of the way down instead of placing the green at the bottom. This leads to a green that favors using the slope in front to reach the surface. By adding bunkers to get the contours pitching wildly back and forth he opened up more options for the ground game and fun. Lastly instead of trying to compete with the backdrop, the hole falls out of the way revealing the stunning vista in the distance. Stanley was truly a genius.

Redan’s, Biarritz and other clever holes

One of my favorite long par threes is the 4th at Riviera. The hole was conceived as a redan with players facing the option of flying the ball over the massive front bunker or hitting a draw to use the natural contour of the fairway right of the bunker and green to feed the ball down onto the putting surface. Thomas created a daunting carry with the placement of the front bunker, but gave such an open and inviting alternative by adding fairway right of the bunker for the player to use the natural slopes to funnel the ball around the bunker. The only unfortunate thing about Riviera is the infestation of the Kikuya grass really has ruined the viability of this clever approach. What makes the redan so good is that the concept is not land driven, although that makes them easier to build, but driven by the green and approach which can be manufactured in flat land.

I have seen personally seen redan’s by Colt, Thomas, MacDonald, Raynor, Tillinghast and Flynn. Some are not set in great pieces of land, but still play just as well. Flynn in particular used the concept almost exclusively on longer threes since it made most players come into the green along the ground. He felt players would always take to the air unless they had no choice, and only length made the alternative to bounce the ball in a better option.




The 4th at Riviera









To better understand the Redan concept , please click on this link to the previous blog on the origins of the Redan:
http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/04/redan.html

The next concept that also is adaptable is the Biarritz. The Biarritz is a concept where the green site and bunkering can be done on any property. The bunker is simple flanking in nature, the green is raised up as a plateau above native grade, and the green contours are the key. Great ones like Yale also have great settings, but others like Fox Chapel (Raynor) are set on plain land. The green itself features a high front plateau, a deep pinnable swale, and high back shelf. The hole is all about accuracy and creativity to find each separate elevation. The interesting thing about the Raynor and MacDonald version of this hole is that they are long just like the original. This once again suggests the option to bounce the ball into the wide open front to access certain pin positions. It also provides options for both the average player and the scratch player.



The Biarritz green at St. Louis CC




To fully understand this idea you may need to read the pervious blog on the origins:
http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/06/biarritz-green.html
This is just two, there are other concepts that can be drawn in. So as you can see, many of the great concepts of golf can be adapted for a longer, and potentially running approach, so that a long hole is more than just……well…… long.

My final long hole is the long downhill par three: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/12/9th-at-jasper-park-cleopatra.html

The 5th at Pine Valley

It could be argued that this is the single hardest shot in golf. The old tag line for this hole was “only God can make a 3”. At 235 yards up hill all the way with huge trouble short, left and long, and a complete disaster looming right; you have no choice but to hit your absolute best. Every part of this hole is hard. The hole is cut into a hillside on the left but Crump created a green up on its own natural plateau to intensify the challenge. This created a false front further defends the green and he included a strong pitch from back to front so even putting is a struggle. A three is well earned here.

Many of the greatest holes, like the Road Hole at the Old Course, are practically impossible to make par on for all but the greatest players. Overcoming one of these “par and a half” holes means a lot more to the average player than making a par on a on a simple par four or three. The insurmountable hole is important to providing interest and contrast in the collection of holes. It often provides memories too, make a birdie and it becomes the story for a lifetime!

“It is an important thing in golf to make holes look much more difficult than they really are. People get more pleasure out of doing a hole which looks almost impossible and yet is not so difficult as it appears.” Alister Mackenzie, Spirit of St. Andrew’s

It is also an interesting technique taken in context of an 18 hole course. Most insurmountable holes tend to be par fours. The idea of one being a three is fascinating since the player begins the challenge with the ball on the tee and the opportunity to hit one great shot. It makes an ideal place for a hole of this type for this reason. No matter how much trouble sits between tee and green ONE great shot can overcome all!

Why is this hole great rather than unfair? You have to understand the value of the hole first; it is used to apply pressure to the player. Crump has given players limited opportunities to get going on the first four holes and this is the point where he says, you thought that was hard, now I want only your best. Holes like this play with the players psyche, it tests whether the player will try rise to the occasion, or be beaten before they play the shot. Some revel in the chance for greatness and rise to the challenge, it’s these moments that set them apart. Pine Valley is all about pressure, there are lots of opportunities to score, but the apprehension it creates about missing shots is what sets it apart from all others.

What Crump did so well at the 5th at Pine Valley was use an exacting par three to ask the player to make one “great” swing under immense pressure, before he opened up more opportunities to score.

Tomorrow a concept or template par three on average land: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/12/redans-biarritz-and-other-clever-holes.html