Course architecture

[revkev]

Okay here's a great place to make be the discussion from the thread about JT.

 

I think there is a good deal of subjectivity and herding to the notion of what constitutes good golf course design. Additionally what might make a great course for guys may not be such fun for us.

 

Copperhead by me is an example. It is loved by Tour players. It's a beautiful course but it has two par 4's that force you to lay up to around 200. It then becomes a forced carry over water to the green. What may be great course design for one level of play forces a tough lay up left followed by an awkward pitch in hopes of saving par. Nice property, very walkable, minimalist design with a variety of memorable holes but those two holes are almost unmanageable and carry huge round killing potential for a guy like me. I either have to risk a missable fairway wood or go with the lay up to a very tight spot. There's no way around it because the water starts at around 180.

 

Regardless of that the game on tour has become bomb and gouge to the point that there is rarely differing strategy to touring pros approaches to holes in tournament play, especially not on the weekend. If one guy is going for it they all are.

 

That was not the case a generation ago. I would go to Westchester and see all different approaches to holes like 10 (1 on the course's actual routing) or 15 or 8 or 9. Each of those holes required a choice to lay back to a corner or go over some obstacle to have a shorter shot into the green.

 

Those days are gone -

 

I remain confident that the courses that are used on tour range from very good to great with the overwhelming majority in the excellent/great category. Of course there is a pecking order to those courses but being ranked the 35th best course used for tour events doesn't make it a dog track.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[sixcat]

I'm not too terribly difficult to please although, you wouldn't know it from some recent posts here.  The most fun I've ever had on the golf course was with my then 8 year old daughter on a 9-hole muni where we live.  But I am extremely discerning when dealing out the moniker of "great".  I can't seem to leave my profession in the car when I go to the golf course.  Therefore, "great" has to pass the professional inspection.  I have too many professional experiences where forcing run-off or piping ground water causes irreversible erosion and sedimentation.  Plus, I grew up playing around Pinehurst.  My expectations are a bit warped I suppose. 

 

Modern course designers like to brag about the amount of dirt they move and how they needed to create the landscape.  Once that has taken place, the natural landscape is nonexistent.  What's left is an underground pipe network forcing natural groundwater and run-off to the areas mother nature had never intended.  Over a longer period of time, these networks or pipe erode after becoming filled with sediment, trash and other debris.  When the course becomes strapped for cash, the first thing cut from the budget is what is "out-of-sight", "out-of-mind".  The piping that needs almost constant care and attention begins to get none.  The process leading to catastrophic failure becomes exacerbated.  But the larger problem becomes lack of space for existing groundwater.  Fill a coffee mug halfway with water, drop a golf ball inside.  What happens to the water?  This is what happens when large pipes take up valuable space beneath the ground surface where natural groundwater once thrived.  The groundwater has no alternative but to shift to another location leaving voids beneath the surface where the water once was, resulting in sinkholes.

 

The other issue with golf course architecture is, they aren't held to the same standard as virtually any other form of construction.  They are free to use landscape architects to design the final lay of the land so to speak.  But landscape architects aren't qualified, nor are they permitted, to do stormwater calculations such as "time of concentration" and plan erosion control measures for 10 year weather events.  Virtually every other aspect of construction requires a licensed civil engineer to perform those calculations, which are submitted to the state for review prior to the issuance of a permit.  But not golf courses in most states.

 

I have no answer for why this is but I can tell you, some golf course designers are far worse than others.  And some very famous designers are among the worst in the world.  Their clients spend millions fixing the drainage, erosion and sedimentation issues left behind by under-qualified design practices.

 

I like the course to aesthetically fit the natural landscape.  Not be forced in its design or "over-designed".  And most importantly, the teeing grounds should be a reasonable distance from the previous green.  For whatever reason, that seems to be my biggest complaint of modern design.  

[revkev]

I will give you fewer great sixcat particularly based on your explanation.

 

So I will stick with very good - an overwhelming number of the courses used on tour are very good with a few great ones sprinkled in and occasional good one.

 

My club has huge drainage issues. It's designed by a very well known architects and is fairly pricey by Florida standards (my congregation gifted me with a membership and I'm in the process of negotiating a clergy membership from them - I've brought them several large parties and a couple of weddings this past year). The club claims it's because there used to be more green space (3 courses in our complex) and one of the courses was shut down, the land was sold and more houses were built.

 

Our sister course used to host a silly season tour event. It's a solid enough course, the private one that I belong to is better but it wouldn't handle spectators well except for nine and eighteen.

 

There's a Bayou in the middle of it so it destroys your green/tee proximity preference.

 

There are tons of very good courses out there that wouldn't or couldn't host tournaments for a whole variety of reasons. There were some grand old clubs where I was from in CT that are too short - but they are incredible tracks for most people.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[PlaidJacket]

I've been wanting to post something here all afternoon. This is a good topic Rev. I don't consider myself any sort of student of golf course design/architecture but I know a good one when I play one. Most of these are not in my local area or region. However, locally as I call them are the Rawls Course in Lubbock, Texas. A Tom Doak design. It has many characteristics of Pacific Dunes. If you've ever played Pacific you'd instantly recognize it. Another I love is Diamondback in Abilene, Texas - designed by renowned architect Charles Coody. No wait... didn't he win the 78 Masters? Yes. He did. But he designed and built one hell of a interesting, fun, and playable course. It's one of a handful of courses I could play everyday and never get bored.

 

I could name many other courses around the country I've played and enjoyed. Some famous and others not at all. What I enjoy most are not what some might call hard or difficult courses. I like a course where you actually have to put some thought into your shots. Especially off the tee. I also enjoy forced carries (sometimes. Ha!) either on approach or laying up on 5's to a forced approach. These types of course are not what I'd call hard. But you must think. They're fun. And when you're finished and especially if you've played reasonably well you feel like you've accomplished something besides just another round. 

 

I've played quite a few courses too where it was obvious the designer tried to get cute and trick-it-up. The designer might have placed awkward fairway bunkers, doglegs that were too sharp, or man-made fake streams that served no purpose. I also despise unnecessarily extreme undulating greens. Sure put some break in them but don't make them unplayable like ski slopes and nascar banks everywhere. 

I really want to spend some time before too much longer and play more on the upper east coast and New England area. Lots and lots of old... old-school courses.

 

Not sure if my babble fits in with Revs topic but I spit it out anyway.

[sixcat]

@RevKev, we have a lot of excellent golf courses in this area similar to what you describe in CT. They are just landlocked and have no available space to lengthen. I suppose that's the case for many areas.

 

I just think the early 20th century architects did a much better job of using the space they had. And without heavy machinery, they didn't try to do too much.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Philly Golf Guy]

On the tour, most courses they play are fairly bland in that they don't provide the players with options. It is very much bomb and gouge for the most part and while some players have complained about it, it's just how it is.

 

Players like courses where they can shape different shots to the green and get creative. Colonial, Harbour town, Old White. A polar opposite to those is what they're playing this week; very narrow, all confined and long.

 

One course I'm really excited about this season is Trinity Forest. Not terribly long, it's all about width there and letting the players select their lines to the green. It should be interesting to see how it's played and received. I'm expecting a lot of great golf not just from an execution standpoint which is what we usually see, but strategically as well.

 

Course architecture is indeed very subjective and at the end of the day, it's about what you like. Some like courses that present options, strategy and character, which is what I favor. Others prefer courses that make it clear what they need to do and then try to pull it off. Nothing wrong with that either. I'd say most tour courses are the latter unfortunately but it's getting better each season.

 

GCA is something I've been fascinated with for years now and love to discuss.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HardcoreLooper]

I'm agreeing with many of the viewpoints expressed above.

 

Forced carries are just too difficult for some players. 200 yard forced carries are too difficult for nearly all players except for the very elite. Let me lay it up to a closer yardage, even if it is a more difficult layup. Truthfully, there should be a bail-out area. My dad's course has a par 5 with a peninsula green. In their member-guest, under pressure, I've seen guys hit 80 yard bump-and-runs and putt from 20 yards short of the green, but they can play the hole. They may be playing it for bogey, but they have an option.

 

I'm also not a fan of hidden hazards. Mike Strantz is famous for hazards you can't see from the tee. We have two of his designs in my area (Royal New Kent and Stonehouse). I'm not much of a fan of either of them. Let me see the trouble off the tee and be scared by it, rather than blissfully hitting into what looks like fairway but is actually a bunker or off a cliff.

 

And while I'm ranting about things I don't like... I don't like green surrounds that are a radically different texture and firmness than the greens themselves. Rock hard greens with squishy, sticky aprons drive me nuts. I don't mind if you keep your greens hard, but then let me bounce the ball on. Hitting a waist-high shot that hits the collar and stops after one hop is ridiculous.

 

As for what I do like, I like courses that let you make a mistake and recover from it. But make it difficult. I've always liked what RTJ said - difficult par, comfortable bogey.

 

Edit - Stonehouse != Storehouse

[Kenny B]

I'm agreeing with many of the viewpoints expressed above.

 

Forced carries are just too difficult for some players. 200 yard forced carries are too difficult for nearly all players except for the very elite. Let me lay it up to a closer yardage, even if it is a more difficult layup. Truthfully, there should be a bail-out area. My dad's course has a par 5 with a peninsula green. In their member-guest, under pressure, I've seen guys hit 80 yard bump-and-runs and putt from 20 yards short of the green, but they can play the hole. They may be playing it for bogey, but they have an option.

 

I'm also not a fan of hidden hazards. Mike Strantz is famous for hazards you can't see from the tee. We have two of his designs in my area (Royal New Kent and Storehouse). I'm not much of a fan of either of them. Let me see the trouble off the tee and be scared by it, rather than blissfully hitting into what looks like fairway but is actually a bunker or off a cliff.

 

And while I'm ranting about things I don't like... I don't like green surrounds that are a radically different texture and firmness than the greens themselves. Rock hard greens with squishy, sticky aprons drive me nuts. I don't mind if you keep your greens hard, but then let me bounce the ball on. Hitting a waist-high shot that hits the collar and stops after one hop is ridiculous.

 

As for what I do like, I like courses that let you make a mistake and recover from it. But make it difficult. I've always liked what RTJ said - difficult par, comfortable bogey.

Totally agree about the hidden hazards.  I suppose they are OK if you know the course, but when I travel and have never played the course before, it's not a pleasant experience.  I also don't like every hole on a course with elevated greens.  I played a very forgettable course that had elevated greens and it gets old, especially when the front is bunkered with no run-up approach.  It's OK if it's a short iron approach, but not with a long club.

[Kor.A.Door]

I think good design/architecture is when you use the land provided, and you don't change the land to make what you envision. I was lucky to play Pinehurst #2 last season and it was an amazing golf course, flat, very little undulation, difficult green complexes, and it penalized you if you miss. That's good design. Growing up I didn't play any high end courses, I just didn't have the means to do so. I don't think any tour course is bad, the play on perfectly manicured course every week. Some are better than others, I just enjoy he game and sdont get to involved in the design aspect of Golf.

[HardcoreLooper]

Totally agree about the hidden hazards.  I suppose they are OK if you know the course, but when I travel and have never played the course before, it's not a pleasant experience.

My sentiments exactly. And RNK and Stonehouse are considered outer Williamsburg-area resort courses. At a private club, totally different story. Trick it up all you want.

 

I also don't like every hole on a course with elevated greens.  I played a very forgettable course that had elevated greens and it gets old, especially when the front is bunkered with no run-up approach.  It's OK if it's a short iron approach, but not with a long club.

There's a really cool old Donald Ross course around here, and a buddy of mine is a member. The course drives me nuts (I need to play it a few more times to figure out how to play it), but it's absolutely fair, and most greens give you a few different routes of attack. As far as I can remember, there are only a couple elevated greens, and both of them are open in the front so you can run the ball up.

[revkev]

Im happy to see that this thread is getting some traction.

 

Back to tour course they may look bland because the guys play bomb and gouge whenever they are able. That doesn't mean we would.

 

Please remember that a scratch golfer averages 250 off the tee, not 290 like the guys on tour. I know lots of us think we hit it farther than that but it is what the actual numbers say.

 

At 250 courses play very different than at 290 -

 

And I belong to a fine private club designed by Tom Fabio - it's tough enough - I don't want it “tricked up.”

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[sixcat]

Not exactly an "architecture" question but thought it was worthy of mention.  I played the Plantation Course at Edisto Island last spring with my daughter.  I thought the course was delightfully designed.  Aesthetically pleasing yet offering a wide variety of options from virtually any position on the course.  And, most importantly, the teeing grounds were in close proximity to the previous green. 

 

My question is, has anyone else played on paspalum? 

 

This was my one and only experience playing paspalum.  It was unique, to say the least.  Very spongy yet tacky and coarse at the same time.  It took me a little bit to get used to how the surface grabbed the club, especially when chipping.  Once I got the hang of it, I really enjoyed it.  I never quite got the hang of the roll on the greens though.  I lost confidence in the ball holding a line and started pushing a lot of putts.  I assume I was mentally attempting to guide the ball toward the hole on my intended line rather than choosing a line and making a quality stroke.

 

Interested in other thoughts.  Thanks!

[Undershooter]

As usual, I'm late to the discussion. (Apologies, I couldn't find the thread and had a tournament last weekend.)

Golf course design is subjective. But people do generally agree when a course is great. 

I think the courses played on tour are fine golf courses but a lot of them end up being bland. They host events because they have the structure to hold the fans/ tv crews, and not because they are great golf courses. This isn't always the case of but is for a lot of them.  

I think that a good golf course should challenge players of all levels and abilities equally. PGA National a couple of weeks back is a good example of a course that is a good tough test for the players but is much too hard for your typical joe schmo hacker. There are too many forced carries and water hazards that have been designed into the layout. Riviera on the other hand has no water, very little out of bounds and offers many different ways to play each hole due its width and angles available off of the tee and into greens. It is a tough test for the tour players but is not unplayable for your typical bogey golfer.

 

Having options and different ways to play each hole is important as well. Not everything should always have to be played through the air. The occasional forced carry isn't a bad thing but there should be options available to the player should that route not be an option. 

 

Using the natural contours of the land is also a nice touch. Moving tons of dirt and sand is sometimes necessary but shouldn't be the norm. 

 

I've posted this link before but I think that it is a good representation of what I think good golf architecture is. There are multiple view points from different architects here. http://www.friedegg.co/golf-courses/definition-golf-course-architecture

I like a lot of stuff The Fried Egg puts out. They have a good podcast and while I don't always agree with them, they do have a lot of good information. 

[Undershooter]

Well designed course that I believe the tour plays: 

Augusta, Riviera, all 3 Pebble Beach courses, Harbortown, Quail Hollow, Sawgrass, Colonial, Muirfiled (it's a little too Nicklausy but still good), TPC River Highlands, and Old White (not my fave but still good). 


Courses that aren't well designed that the tour plays:

 

TPC Louisiana, TPC Four Seasons, PGA West, Torrey Pines (could be great if redone. Fantastic property), TPC San Antonio, Liberty National, Ritz Carlton GC, PGA National, and Waialae.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some on both sides. These are obviously just my opinions so feel free to disagree or add some to the list.  

[sixcat]

Well designed course that I believe the tour plays: 

 

Augusta, Riviera, all 3 Pebble Beach courses, Harbortown, Quail Hollow, Sawgrass, Colonial, Muirfiled (it's a little too Nicklausy but still good), TPC River Highlands, and Old White (not my fave but still good). 

 

 

Courses that aren't well designed that the tour plays:

 

TPC Louisiana, TPC Four Seasons, PGA West, Torrey Pines (could be great if redone. Fantastic property), TPC San Antonio, Liberty National, Ritz Carlton GC, PGA National, and Waialae.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some on both sides. These are obviously just my opinions so feel free to disagree or add some to the list.  

I agree with your list of Tour courses, at least the ones I have been to.  I have played the Old White a few times albeit, not in a few years. It's not the best course on the Greenbrier property in my opinion.  Just the most famous!  The courses across the mountain in Hot Springs are far better in my opinion. 

 

I have also played Quail Hollow and Harbortown.  Quail beat me up pretty good but I enjoyed it immensely.  My former neighbor's brother-in-law is a member.  I played it once with them and another time with my brother, who was invited after performing off-duty policing for the tournament several years ago.   Harbortown was amazing as well.  I haven't played a tremendous amount of "coastal" golf so, it's always a treat to be able to.

[Undershooter]

Sixcat it sounds like you've gotten to play quite a few cool places. That's awesome! 

I think I've only played 1 PGA tour course so far but look to add many more in the coming years.

And just to clarify, just because I think that the course isn't architecturally good or great doesn't mean that I don't want to play it. I'd love to play each and every one of the places these guys go. 

 

Edit: I've played 2

[Kor.A.Door]

I've been to quail hollow several times to watch tournaments including the PGA last season, the course layout is exceptional, no forced carries, it's just long with exquisite green complexes that are really tough. We are hoping to go to the ocean course soon as well. I think that would be a fun course to play. Kiawah ocean has to be on the list of great courses doesn't it? Anyway. This is good reading either way.

[MGoBlue100]

Totally agree about the hidden hazards. I suppose they are OK if you know the course, but when I travel and have never played the course before, it's not a pleasant experience. I also don't like every hole on a course with elevated greens. I played a very forgettable course that had elevated greens and it gets old, especially when the front is bunkered with no run-up approach. It's OK if it's a short iron approach, but not with a long club.

There's a PB Dye design near me that's like that. Several pedestal greens, no where to bail out, and the superintendent keeps the place as wet as a sod farm. I hate that course and PB Dye.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[MGoBlue100]

Not exactly an "architecture" question but thought it was worthy of mention. I played the Plantation Course at Edisto Island last spring with my daughter. I thought the course was delightfully designed. Aesthetically pleasing yet offering a wide variety of options from virtually any position on the course. And, most importantly, the teeing grounds were in close proximity to the previous green.

 

I've also played Plantation at Edisto. (My wife LOVES Edisto!) It's a little “target golfy” for me, but a fun course nonetheless. I didn't notice the texture issues with the paspalum that you noted, but it'll be in my head now, LOL. Thanks a lot...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[MGoBlue100]

I've posted this link before but I think that it is a good representation of what I think good golf architecture is. There are multiple view points from different architects here. http://www.friedegg.co/golf-courses/definition-golf-course-architecture

I like a lot of stuff The Fried Egg puts out. They have a good podcast and while I don't always agree with them, they do have a lot of good information.

I also am a big fan of The Fried Egg. Andy Johnson does a great job, IMO, and gets a ton of great architects on his podcast. I've enjoyed them and learned a lot about golf course architecture, which I'd love to have more time to study.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[sixcat]

I've also played Plantation at Edisto. (My wife LOVES Edisto!) It's a little “target golfy” for me, but a fun course nonetheless. I didn't notice the texture issues with the paspalum that you noted, but it'll be in my head now, LOL. Thanks a lot...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Not sure what part of Upstate you live in but the Palmetto Club is my favorite place in the world.  I was fortunate enough to play it in 2006 during Masters week.  That's my idea of a perfect golf course.  I was stationed at Jackson in the early 90's for about 4 years.  I really enjoyed the courses on base.  I believe one was designed by George Cobb and the other Arthur Davis.

 

A good friend of mine coaches the basketball team Ridge View.  They just won the AAAA state title on Saturday.

[Undershooter]

I've been to quail hollow several times to watch tournaments including the PGA last season, the course layout is exceptional, no forced carries, it's just long with exquisite green complexes that are really tough. We are hoping to go to the ocean course soon as well. I think that would be a fun course to play. Kiawah ocean has to be on the list of great courses doesn't it? Anyway. This is good reading either way.

Man, I'm SUPER jealous! Kiawah is one of my bucket list courses. I feel like its pretty good architecture because of the many options and ways to play each hole. It is extremely difficult though. You'll have to let us know how it was. 

[MGoBlue100]

Not sure what part of Upstate you live in but the Palmetto Club is my favorite place in the world. I was fortunate enough to play it in 2006 during Masters week. That's my idea of a perfect golf course. I was stationed at Jackson in the early 90's for about 4 years. I really enjoyed the courses on base. I believe one was designed by George Cobb and the other Arthur Davis.

 

A good friend of mine coaches the basketball team Ridge View. They just won the AAAA state title on Saturday.

I'm about 15 miles W of Greenville, halfway to Clemson. You're talking about Palmetto Club in Aiken? Haven't had the pleasure yet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[sixcat]

I'm about 15 miles W of Greenville, halfway to Clemson. You're talking about Palmetto Club in Aiken? Haven't had the pleasure yet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Yes, Palmetto in Aiken.  You can play it the week of the Masters like I did.  It costs a ton though.  It wasn't nearly as expensive 12 years ago.

[Kor.A.Door]

Man, I'm SUPER jealous! Kiawah is one of my bucket list courses. I feel like its pretty good architecture because of the many options and ways to play each hole. It is extremely difficult though. You'll have to let us know how it was.

It is still a bucket list as well for me, but hoping to check it off very Soon, I only live about 3.5 hours away, and they have some good stay and play packages. It's just a matter of getting some of the guys to commit and then set it up, early spring and late fall are the best pricing, but also the most unpredictable weather. Could be 75 and nice, or 40 and rain.

[HardcoreLooper]

My question is, has anyone else played on paspalum?

The green surrounds at my dad's course in Mt. Pleasant, SC are paspalum. I don't like them. You're almost forced to pitch the ball over the fringes, because they're like velcro. And their greens are bermuda and tend to be hard. I like the greens and the surrounds to be the same grass and same hardness. If the greens are hard, make the surrounds hard as well and let me bounce it on. If the greens are sticky, then it's not nearly such a big deal if the surrounds are sticky.

 

Be consistent.

[Undershooter]

The green surrounds at my dad's course in Mt. Pleasant, SC are paspalum. I don't like them. You're almost forced to pitch the ball over the fringes, because they're like velcro. And their greens are bermuda and tend to be hard. I like the greens and the surrounds to be the same grass and same hardness. If the greens are hard, make the surrounds hard as well and let me bounce it on. If the greens are sticky, then it's not nearly such a big deal if the surrounds are sticky.

 

Be consistent.

I kinda like the paspalum because the ball sits up so much. Plus I like flying the ball to the putting surface. 

​I agree that the collar should be a similar firmness to the greens though. That's always annoying when it isn't. 

[MGoBlue100]

It is still a bucket list as well for me, but hoping to check it off very Soon, I only live about 3.5 hours away, and they have some good stay and play packages. It's just a matter of getting some of the guys to commit and then set it up, early spring and late fall are the best pricing, but also the most unpredictable weather. Could be 75 and nice, or 40 and rain.

Just recd an email today about deals at Kiawah. You should look into it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[DiscipleofPenick]

Making a course tough does not make it good. Ross and Tillinghast made courses that stand the test of time. Nothing is finer than a straight forward course that says take your best shot.

 

Driver: Titleist 915 D3 w/ Diamana X 70g B4 setting

Irons: TaylorMade R7 TP 4-PW S300 shafts 1* upright

Titleist Vokey Wedges 50-54-58

Cobra Fly-z 16.5 FW

Adams Pro Boxer hybrid 18*

6.5 index, RH, Cleveland, OH

[JTexGolfer]

That's a gorgeous looking course. Better not miss that green!