by In today’s Alternate Shot, Joseph LaMagna poses a few questions to Garrett Morrison on golf course architecture, specifically pin positions.
Joseph: All right, Garrett. I’ve had a couple (multi-part) architecture questions bouncing around in my head, and there’s no better opinion to solicit than yours.
How many great pin locations must a green have for a hole to be considered a great golf hole? Is it lazy — or underwhelming — architecture if a hole has just one truly great pin location but plays mediocre to 3-5 pin locations? Or should a hole be judged strictly on its best pin location or two? Did any of golf’s preeminent architects tackle this topic in their writing?
Take these in whichever direction you’d like. I’m just curious about your overall thoughts on pin locations and how they factor into building and evaluating a great golf hole.
Garrett: First, I appreciate that you’ve split the difference between “pin position” (the term preferred by crusty golf journalists) and “hole location” (the nomenclature endorsed by the game’s governing bodies) by saying “pin location.” For my part, I’ll stick with “pin position.” I don’t want to give the Golf Writers Association of America yet another reason to ignore my existence.
Anyway, to answer your questions in quick succession (and remember, these are just my opinions!): 1) I don’t think a hole needs to have a particular number of pin positions to be considered great; 2) and 3) I do believe a hole could be considered flawed if its quality relies on a certain pin position; 4) after thumbing through a few of my favorite golf architecture books, I’ve concluded that this isn’t a topic that preoccupies many architects.* Which is interesting. Maybe it’s because pin placement is an element of a course’s presentation that architects don’t have a lot of control over. They can create the canvas, but whether all sections of it get used is up to the course’s operators.
(*Tom Doak says a great deal about green sizes and shapes in his book The Anatomy of a Golf Course, but he doesn’t really delve into the impact of different pin positions on the playing characteristics of a hole. He does offer a provocative tidbit on a related topic, though: “Despite all my discussion of pin placements, I think too much attention has been paid to their creation by some architects, whose greens suffer from the obvious appearance of artificiality. The best greens look like an unbroken series of rolls at first glance, and divide themselves into pin placements only under careful scrutiny.”)
When it comes to assessing the quality of a set of greens, my guiding light is variety. Some greens should be severe, others more placid; some greens should derive their character from slope, others from undulation; some greens should be smallish, others biggish; and some greens should differentiate between pin positions starkly, while others do so more subtly.
There are some drawbacks to small greens, however. One, they don’t spread out wear-and-tear, which harms the turf and makes the superintendent’s job harder. Two, they don’t offer much day-to-day variety. If the pin can’t be moved around, the hole will play similarly day in and day out, making things a bit dull for regular players. Still, I don’t have a problem with the occasional tiny green. Hole-to-hole variety is king (not to mention Alister MacKenzie’s fifth principle: “Every hole should have its own character.”)
I’d like to pursue the idea of a hole having one good pin position and a few so-so ones a bit further. Do you have an example in mind?
Joseph: Well, Garrett, I’d love to tell you that using the term “pin location” was calculated fencesitting. Admittedly, I was completely unaware this was a point of contention. Seriously? I understand arguing over “renovation” versus “restoration,” but we fight about “pin location?”
Garrett: Hell yes we do. Isn’t it wonderful?
Joseph: That Tom Doak excerpt really gets to the heart of my question. Great pull. Not to put words in Tom’s mouth, but he seems to be suggesting that you build a great green and concern yourself with pin placements later versus actively building with specific pin placements in mind. I’d be curious which architects adhere to that perspective or have a differing approach, assuming I’m not mischaracterizing Tom’s perspective.
Garrett: At the very least, Doak is saying he doesn’t want the distinctions between separate pinnable areas to be too obvious. Maybe he likes giving greenkeepers and players a degree of liberty — allowing them to discover pin placements rather than solving the equation for them. That requires some humility from the architect, I think.
The 16th green at Augusta National. (Photo: Fried Egg Golf)
Joseph: So, examples. Augusta National is a golf course where each green tends to have a variety of strong pin locations, with distinct character and strategy to each location. The first green might be the best example; every pin location on that green captivates me. I’d offer the 16th, though, as an example where certain pin locations are… stronger than others. I thoroughly enjoy the back-right pin location, while the bowled, traditional Sunday pin location kind of stinks! I know it’s an iconic location, but the hole plays far less dynamically to that pin.
Maybe less controversially, I’d suggest the 17th at TPC Scottsdale — the drivable par 4. The back pin is so much fun and presents highly demanding short game shots with little margin for error. Some of the other pin locations on 17 are way less intriguing. Is it fair to hold that hole to the standard of its pin locations on net? Or is a hole as strong as its best pin location?
Garrett: I like your analysis here. Perhaps we could say that an ideal golf hole plays well to all of its pin positions. If the 16th at Augusta National and the 17th at TPC Scottsdale don’t meet that criterion, we can criticize them accordingly.
At the same time, I think it’s great for a green to offer pin positions of varying difficulty. Like you, I’m not a big fan of the 16th green at ANGC. I find it lacks the complexity and mystery of the course’s Alister MacKenzie- and Perry Maxwell-designed greens. (Reminder: today’s 16th was built by Robert Trent Jones in 1948.) But I don’t object to funnel pins in general. Sometimes they can be super fun and interesting — a valid form of a day-to-day variety. The key is for friendly pin positions to be just as compelling, in their own ways, as hard ones.
This piece originally appeared in the Fried Egg Golf newsletter. Subscribe for free and receive golf news and insight every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
