Architecture ... for Show

CC of North Carolina - 2 of 4 that day never finished

When I look at holes, occasionally I’m forced to ask whether the architect created that hole because that was what they saw in that location or did they build that particular concept because they thought it would draw attention to themselves.

For example, I admire the 17^th at the TPC at Sawgrass, but I loathe the 100’s of copies that followed it.

I respect the hole for the psychological ploy that it is. Every player playing Sawgrass has it in the back of their mind that they will have to get through the 17^th at the end of the round. In competition they know that no round is safe because there is nowhere to bail out. For an amateur the excitement is there because to many this is the most famous hole in tournament golf. They love the idea of succeeding on a hole where so many professionals have failed. One of the reasons it works is because it’s very short.

It’s actually a dumb idea. When this concept is built on a course with membership play it’s bordering on cruel since the poor golfer will have to suffer through this hole every time they play. The damage to a great round can be unlimited and often a player will not finish a round rather than dump a sleeve in the pond each day. It fails because there are no options for safe play and the hole is unplayable in poor conditions. This year I talked about the European Tour event in Sweden where high winds the 17^th hole unplayable essentially ruining the tournament. The concept is a horrible because there are no options and no recovery shots, that’s not good design. Each time I see it, I consider it a failure of the architect to recognize people actually have to play these holes.

Doonbeg - what does that add?

A more subtle one is a bunker in the centre of the green.

I happen to love the 6^th at Riviera with its bunker placed in the middle of the green. My admiration stems from a brilliant set of green contours that allow a player to work the ball around the bunker to a pin found on the opposite side of the green. I believe this green to be one of the better set of contours I have seen. I love this hole as a one off, something unusual and “brilliantly executed”.

I actually don’t care for the hole as a concept. To me a bunker in the green is a gimmick. The only reason for building a feature is for aesthetics because essentially all you’re doing is creating a series of small targets by separating them with a feature in the middle. I’ve yet to find a second one that works for me. Each time it makes the bunker feel like it was put there to show off how clever the architect is rather than for strategy. I see its use as attention seeker rather than clever ploy.

I’m all for creativity and finding unusual ideas that can be incorporated back into designs, but golf architects must recognize that just because a hole is famous doesn’t mean the concept is worthy of duplication.