The Opening Hole
IN: Golf Architecture | by Tony Cashmore | 26 Jul 2004
What is the ideal opening golf hole? Not so long ago, many architects laying out a new course would try for a par-5 to open the round, fairly open and friendly. The thinking was that a par-5 allowed the field to get away with less delay, that players spread out more quickly, that there was no 'wait' needed on, say, a group putting out in front on a reachable par-4 hole. The idea of using a par-3 hole to open with was never considered, unless site constraints, or the exploitation of exceptional natural features demanded that, the reason being that the delay time for playing a par-3 hole causes greater 'spacing' time at the tee: perhaps 15-19 minutes for foursome groups instead of 10-12 minutes on a two-shot or three-shot hole.
So, what's the situation today? Obviously the advances in golf equipment have allowed many more golfers to think they can reach a good length par-5 green after a reasonable drive, so the purpose of the 'spread out' exercise is made less valuable - more players at the tee are waiting now on the guys down the fairway, who in turn are waiting on the green ahead to clear. But perhaps there's an argument anyway that the four par-5 holes (on a normal golf course) are of such design importance that none should be automatically 'squandered' in the shallow interests of getting the field away. Design importance? Perhaps that gives us a clue to what makes an ideal opening golf hole.
Because, whether a par-5 or a par-4, long or short, the one thing the opening hole should have is arresting golf beauty - that visual appeal to the special golfing eye which says "wow!" this is going to be some sort of wonderful course! So, the approach to the opening tee should be special, the turf standard of that tee immaculate, and the vista ahead should cry out: "play me, I am here for you, and we're going to have fun!"
Consider some opening holes we all know, from that point of view. The Old Course at St. Andrews presents merely a hugely broad, apparently flat land space in front of you stretching away towards something indefinable, and a sense of white fences somewhere to the side; beyond, left, the major glitter and bulk of the hotel, and a feeling of other greyish buildings disappearing into those strange soft Scottish greens and mauves. This is not, immediately, arresting golf beauty, but the walk to the tee was utterly special, the great grey mass of the Clubhouse (and its eyes) is behind you, so close, and the taste of sandy grass still on your mouth, because you knelt down and kissed that tee, didn't you? So it's a special opening hole because of its ambience, and the reverence we hold for it.
Take Metropolitan's opening hole, reached after a really long walk across open turf, a sense of majestic trees to the sides, a shelter building, and here's the tee, merely (almost) mown out closer, aiming away to a broad flat fairway, scribed left side by white twisted bunkers, the long right side curve set with dense bush - you feel somehow inclined to drive centre left and long, and that's clever design and correct, and the view then across a bunker sprawl to the green is beautiful; the hole as an opening examination is everything it should be, enticing, rewarding, exhilarating.
Think of Victoria's little 'pretend' par-4, which was fine when created, with the clubs and balls of the day, played from a highish plateau down across tawny foreground to a steppy green beset with bunkers, the second tee behind, visible in the corner, the fence and road behind that. It cannot exiliarate today can it? They have thrust up the bunker 'teeth' to try to force the 2-shot strategy, but beauty and harmony and enticement have suffered as a result: there's no fault in this - it's a product of its time. Perhaps, with nowhere now to move, there would be value in making a new par-3 of exceptional beauty here, notwithstanding some 'quibbles' which would result - balance in the nines for example.
Or Kew's opening hole - just driveable from the elevated tee by the long hitters, but compromised by trees right, the green hidden away behind them sadly, a good drive bunker (for members) the aim point. Not an especially beautiful golf vista, on a course which offers many superbly beautiful tree-lined fairways - there's too strong a sense of movement, crowding, tightness somehow, here at the start. But the green, with its high confronting bunker right front, and falling away to the rear, is at least an intriguing example of how to make a short par-4 much tougher than its length suggests. And it beckons you forward with some excitement, and that's a good thing on your opening hole.
Royal Melbourne's two opening holes by contrast, are contrasts in themselves. The little downhill par-4 East Course opening plays upon you because you can't see most of the fairway; you know there's lots of room left, but down there the ball runs away from the green; a drive close to the right side bunkers and beyond feeds into a gentle containment, from which an exacting, exquisite little pitch is needed onto a frightfully sloping and fast sliver of a green - once known, understood, this is a magical entry to the course, and its lack of strong visual distinction is largely responsible for its golfing, psychological, beauty. Do you see what I mean?
But the West Course's first hole offers a subtle blandness - one feels the drive is open, unexamined (don't go right, of course, but why would you?), and far away down there a flattish green statement, round bunker right side , not a lot behind. After that good drive there's a lumpy rough left side to your vista, and somehow it's hard to concentrate on the green, because there's not a lot of definition around it. On balance, perhaps we want to finish out this hole as easily and quickly as possible, yearning for the glorious tests which follow. Maybe that's not a bad alternative intention for an opening hole - let's think about that!
