Golf Architecture for Non-normal People

[ejgaudette]

I am sure this is not going to be the most popular thread, but I have been getting very interested in and reading up on golf course architecture and have no desire to join another forum so hopefully there are a some folks on here that would like to talk about some of this stuff from time to time.

Just recently read Geoff Shackelford's great book on this topic, hence the title of this thread. I also have ready some work on Fried Egg Golf, https://thefriedegg.com/, they have some good archived content and share some books. I also read George C Thomas's book Golf Course Architecture in America. It was just fascinating to ready especially last year before the the US Open at LACC, a course he designed.

Even with the title I do want to adhere to Geoff Shackelford in that this will not be overly technical, no need to call humps near a green hummocks or anything like that.

I will just leave this great image from George Thomas's book that got me drawing some holes this way that I will share soon. Also just fascinating to see how he was thinking about this hole and how it could be played by multiple skill levels.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts!

[Nick_D]

Love this! I've always been a little bit of a golf architecture nerd and always am amazed at how architects can make stunning courses with playability for all skill levels. I remember doing a deep dive into Tobacco Road and being so impressed with the Mike Strantz design. Wide fairways and dramatic green complexes make for a fair challenge at all skill levels. 

The coolest holes to me are ones that can be played countless different ways and make the player consider different decisions. While watching the PGA Tour, it can get boring seeing every single player play the hole exactly the same. It gets fun when there is a short par 4 and it makes them decide whether or not to go for it. The par 4 6th hole at LACC was a perfect example of that. Plenty short for all players to have a go, but the blind tee shot and trouble around the green made them all have to think about it. 

[ejgaudette]

2 minutes ago, Nick_D said:

Love this! I've always been a little bit of a golf architecture nerd and always am amazed at how architects can make stunning courses with playability for all skill levels. I remember doing a deep dive into Tobacco Road and being so impressed with the Mike Strantz design. Wide fairways and dramatic green complexes make for a fair challenge at all skill levels. 

The coolest holes to me are ones that can be played countless different ways and make the player consider different decisions. While watching the PGA Tour, it can get boring seeing every single player play the hole exactly the same. It gets fun when there is a short par 4 and it makes them decide whether or not to go for it. The par 4 6th hole at LACC was a perfect example of that. Plenty short for all players to have a go, but the blind tee shot and trouble around the green made them all have to think about it. 

So true and the work the Strantz did at Tobacco Road is insane, just the visual deception as well. Making places that look tight but actually there is width there. Some of the best things people could do before GPS technology was this visual deception. The bunker that looks green side but is 40 yards short, or the green that looks closer than it is. Not an issue now but those angles can still make things hard to see.

I think 6 at LACC was a good one, though I wish it was even a bit wider in spots around that course. Some of those fairways had some great slope and if the kept it shorter loner it would have taken more drives off line and to a poor angle.

[ejgaudette]

Here is one of the sketches that I have done. Its is based on a hay field I pass all the time that has the general contouring. I ended up mapping the larger tract a bit in Google Maps to get the elevation changes that led to some of the the other holes I am working on. Came up with a quick 9 that I think could be interesting and strategic. Not that it will ever actually get built but still was fun to draw in the George Thomas style a bit.

Hole would be a par 4 where taking on more distance for the long player narrows the landing area and creates a bit of a less favorable angle. while those playing shorter and right get an angle without the false front and the back slope should put you on the green instead of the line for most of the long players where the back slope takes you toward the green-side bunker. The fairway bunkers might not be a bad place as I likely would not want to have them too deep just tougher to control. Also this area abuts the road so OB all down the left. Love any thoughts.

 

[edingc]

30 minutes ago, ejgaudette said:

Here is one of the sketches that I have done. Its is based on a hay field I pass all the time that has the general contouring. I ended up mapping the larger tract a bit in Google Maps to get the elevation changes that led to some of the the other holes I am working on. Came up with a quick 9 that I think could be interesting and strategic. Not that it will ever actually get built but still was fun to draw in the George Thomas style a bit.

Hole would be a par 4 where taking on more distance for the long player narrows the landing area and creates a bit of a less favorable angle. while those playing shorter and right get an angle without the false front and the back slope should put you on the green instead of the line for most of the long players where the back slope takes you toward the green-side bunker. The fairway bunkers might not be a bad place as I likely would not want to have them too deep just tougher to control. Also this area abuts the road so OB all down the left. Love any thoughts.

 

Wow, this is fantastic. My drawing skills are pretty awful, but this could be really fun to do.

I do often "reimagine" my home course and what it might be like to renovate the greens and tee box locations. I haven't done as much reading about architecture as you, but this thread will be a fun follow.

[cnosil]

3 hours ago, ejgaudette said:

Here is one of the sketches that I have done. Its is based on a hay field I pass all the time that has the general contouring. I ended up mapping the larger tract a bit in Google Maps to get the elevation changes that led to some of the the other holes I am working on. Came up with a quick 9 that I think could be interesting and strategic. Not that it will ever actually get built but still was fun to draw in the George Thomas style a bit.

Hole would be a par 4 where taking on more distance for the long player narrows the landing area and creates a bit of a less favorable angle. while those playing shorter and right get an angle without the false front and the back slope should put you on the green instead of the line for most of the long players where the back slope takes you toward the green-side bunker. The fairway bunkers might not be a bad place as I likely would not want to have them too deep just tougher to control. Also this area abuts the road so OB all down the left. Love any thoughts.

 

Evern considered entering the Lido contest put on by the Allister MacKenzie society?

https://mackenziesociety.org/ray-haddock-lido-prize/

 

[ejgaudette]

10 hours ago, cnosil said:

Evern considered entering the Lido contest put on by the Allister MacKenzie society?

https://mackenziesociety.org/ray-haddock-lido-prize/

 

Maybe not this one but as a kid I saw a similar contest in Golf Digest and thought about entering. I had come up with a par three ringed by bunkers. Little did I know at the time that there were some famous CB McDonald "Short" hole templates that do just that.

Winner was someone that actually found land and forms using Google Earth and other software that I did not know existed. Seemed cool but inaccessible. Enjoy the drawing and dreaming, but might be worth tossing one in there.

[ejgaudette]

13 hours ago, edingc said:

Wow, this is fantastic. My drawing skills are pretty awful, but this could be really fun to do.

I do often "reimagine" my home course and what it might be like to renovate the greens and tee box locations. I haven't done as much reading about architecture as you, but this thread will be a fun follow.

Thanks, it helps that bunkering from many of the Golden Age architects are those amoeba shapes and green would be similar with tongues and other oddities to keep in interesting.

My local course is getting renovated and I had hoped to maybe talk to the architect but that did not go anywhere. Just was curious to hear the strategy. It looks like they expanded the greens and gave some width back, but they are not open yet for the year. I will be sure to write up what I think when I get out there.

I welcome your re-designs of your local course. I am sure they would be some really interesting changes.

[ejgaudette]

Looking up the contest it looks really fun and I will have to do it next year. My current work would need to be made to scale and add the other images and right now it needs to be to California by 5/1 so that might be tight. Seems like fun though.

[ILMgolfnut]

I drew up some designs for the old Golf Digest Armchair Architect contests but I don't think I ever actually submitted them. As I recall, they gave you a topo map of an area and you could fit in two or three or four holes on that site. Then later I played around with some early hole design software. Never got beyond that though. But I've filled up a few notebooks of graph paper with course designs.

[ejgaudette]

42 minutes ago, ILMgolfnut said:

I drew up some designs for the old Golf Digest Armchair Architect contests but I don't think I ever actually submitted them. As I recall, they gave you a topo map of an area and you could fit in two or three or four holes on that site. Then later I played around with some early hole design software. Never got beyond that though. But I've filled up a few notebooks of graph paper with course designs.

I love it and would love to see some of them if you are willing to share. I am slowly filling up the sketch book here as well.

Getting a topo map would be great. I have tried to find some that have the more subtle movement in the land that is better for golf but all I can find are mountain topo maps which only work if each like is like 3 inches of height change

[ILMgolfnut]

2 minutes ago, ejgaudette said:

I love it and would love to see some of them if you are willing to share. I am slowly filling up the sketch book here as well.

Getting a topo map would be great. I have tried to find some that have the more subtle movement in the land that is better for golf but all I can find are mountain topo maps which only work if each like is like 3 inches of height change

I don't think I still have any of the drawings. This was like 30 years ago. There is one place where I might have stashed some and I'll look after I get home.

[ejgaudette]

2 minutes ago, ILMgolfnut said:

I don't think I still have any of the drawings. This was like 30 years ago. There is one place where I might have stashed some and I'll look after I get home.

Safe travels I know you have a long day ahead and would be sweet if you found them.

[cksurfdude]

Interested in learning more about golf course architecture - no aspirations of trying it myself (heck I can barely draw a stick figure!) - but with the view to improving my own on course strategy by better perceiving hazards, no-go vs safe areas, etc.

@ejgaudette I like your drawing and also enjoy, and prefer, courses that make use of and fit into their natural landscape!

 

[ejgaudette]

20 hours ago, cksurfdude said:

Interested in learning more about golf course architecture - no aspirations of trying it myself (heck I can barely draw a stick figure!) - but with the view to improving my own on course strategy by better perceiving hazards, no-go vs safe areas, etc.

@ejgaudette I like your drawing and also enjoy, and prefer, courses that make use of and fit into their natural landscape!

 

I can really help on those course that have the strategy in there. Angles can matter, even if they are had to find at times. If you want a quick introduction about what to look for and see that strategy a good start is Golf Course Architecture for Normal People that I mention above.

[vandyland]

So, I dabble in this stuff (particularly the strategy set or dictated by a hole's design) and even just yesterday I was noticing things I hadn't really thought about. There is a shortish par 4 at a public course I play a lot that I always thought was a nothing hole:

But upon closer inspection, it presents a distinct option. Hit your drive out to the left and you have a relatively stress free landing area. However, your angle is challenged and it brings either the left bunker in if you come up short on approach or a drop off back right if you miss long. Also the green is running away from you. If you take your drive down the right, you likely carry the bunker but then there is a large tree blocking you or heavy trees right (those trees are 40-50 ft tall). But if you survive all that, you have the angle. As for me, I usually just try to hit driver as far as possible down the left to leave 50-70 yds which is always a bit of a delicate shot. Not the most amazing hole but I have played this hole dozens of time and never seen the challenge this clearly until yesterday. 

[ILMgolfnut]

On 4/24/2024 at 9:00 AM, ejgaudette said:

Safe travels I know you have a long day ahead and would be sweet if you found them.

Forgot to look for them after I got home at 1 a.m. on Thursday and I'm back on the road again. I'll try to remember to look when I get home again Tuesday night.

[ILMgolfnut]

On 4/28/2024 at 10:06 AM, cksurfdude said:

with the view to improving my own on course strategy by better perceiving hazards, no-go vs safe areas, etc.

I can recommend a book on that subject: Golf By Design by Robert Trent Jones Jr. He goes through the tricks of the golf architecture trade and how you can analyze them to develop a strategy for each hole. Available on Amazon for as little as $3.48 for a used copy. 

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=golf+by+design+book&crid=7T894XL9HUGQ&sprefix=golf+by+design+book%2Caps%2C113&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

[ejgaudette]

2 hours ago, ILMgolfnut said:

I can recommend a book on that subject: Golf By Design by Robert Trent Jones Jr. He goes through the tricks of the golf architecture trade and how you can analyze them to develop a strategy for each hole. Available on Amazon for as little as $3.48 for a used copy. 

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=golf+by+design+book&crid=7T894XL9HUGQ&sprefix=golf+by+design+book%2Caps%2C113&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

Thanks for sharing sounds like a good one

[ejgaudette]

3 hours ago, vandyland said:

So, I dabble in this stuff (particularly the strategy set or dictated by a hole's design) and even just yesterday I was noticing things I hadn't really thought about. There is a shortish par 4 at a public course I play a lot that I always thought was a nothing hole:

But upon closer inspection, it presents a distinct option. Hit your drive out to the left and you have a relatively stress free landing area. However, your angle is challenged and it brings either the left bunker in if you come up short on approach or a drop off back right if you miss long. Also the green is running away from you. If you take your drive down the right, you likely carry the bunker but then there is a large tree blocking you or heavy trees right (those trees are 40-50 ft tall). But if you survive all that, you have the angle. As for me, I usually just try to hit driver as far as possible down the left to leave 50-70 yds which is always a bit of a delicate shot. Not the most amazing hole but I have played this hole dozens of time and never seen the challenge this clearly until yesterday. 

I love when you see the strategy like this in a hole and can discern how the architect might want you to approach the hole and if that can help you play the hole.

[ILMgolfnut]

3 hours ago, vandyland said:

So, I dabble in this stuff (particularly the strategy set or dictated by a hole's design) and even just yesterday I was noticing things I hadn't really thought about. There is a shortish par 4 at a public course I play a lot that I always thought was a nothing hole:

But upon closer inspection, it presents a distinct option. Hit your drive out to the left and you have a relatively stress free landing area. However, your angle is challenged and it brings either the left bunker in if you come up short on approach or a drop off back right if you miss long. Also the green is running away from you. If you take your drive down the right, you likely carry the bunker but then there is a large tree blocking you or heavy trees right (those trees are 40-50 ft tall). But if you survive all that, you have the angle. As for me, I usually just try to hit driver as far as possible down the left to leave 50-70 yds which is always a bit of a delicate shot. Not the most amazing hole but I have played this hole dozens of time and never seen the challenge this clearly until yesterday. 

That's precisely the kind of thing RTJ Jr. talks about in Golf By Design.  He also talks about the way architects try to trick you with optical illusions, stuff like a prominent bunker that looks from the tee like it's very close to the green, but isn't.

[ejgaudette]

I thought it would be fun to take a dive into a hole from the weeks tournament.

Looking at the 13th from TPC Louisiana I thought it was a fun hole with the tree in the fairway presenting the decision off the tee. Easy to play to the right, but that leaves the longer approach. You could try and draw it a a bit around the tree, bring more risk and a chance of playing over those fronting bunkers. Or try a fade tight along the tree line. Or if you have 191 ball speed like Ryan Brehm you can drive the green (just how Pete Dye drew it up). I just like the fairway tree playing a role in the hole strategy. Not something you see everyday.

 

[ILMgolfnut]

On 4/29/2024 at 11:06 AM, ILMgolfnut said:

Forgot to look for them after I got home at 1 a.m. on Thursday and I'm back on the road again. I'll try to remember to look when I get home again Tuesday night.

Looked this time. Not in the first location. There's one more possibility but that's in the half of the garage that remains a jungle so it will take a while to dig through.

[ejgaudette]

11 hours ago, ILMgolfnut said:

Looked this time. Not in the first location. There's one more possibility but that's in the half of the garage that remains a jungle so it will take a while to dig through.

Just the motivation you needed to clean all that stuff up right?

[vandyland]

@ejgaudette A lot of hate on Valhalla from the GCA community this week (or maybe just the outlets that I listen to/view). Same for Quail Hollow the week before. Interested in your thoughts but it seems like the issue with Valhalla is that it is very "manufactured" and there is not a lot of strategy to it. Kind of a "hit it here or else" golf course. Narrow fairways, thick rough generally doesn't produce "interesting" golf. One point that Fried Egg pointed out is that there is some cool topography at Valhalla that they have essentially covered up with thick rough. So you don't really get to see how the ball would react to it or use it when playing. If the playing corridors were expanded there might be something there. Anyway, I find it hard to evaluate golf courses on TV because so much of the elevation and topography doesn't really "pop" on TV.

As for Quail Hollow, I will likely get to play it next year when I go to Charlotte so maybe one day I can see why so many people dislike that golf course. Seems "fine" to me but nothing really stands out, just very long and kind of "driving range" golf out there. 

[ejgaudette]

3 minutes ago, vandyland said:

@ejgaudette A lot of hate on Valhalla from the GCA community this week (or maybe just the outlets that I listen to/view). Same for Quail Hollow the week before. Interested in your thoughts but it seems like the issue with Valhalla is that it is very "manufactured" and there is not a lot of strategy to it. Kind of a "hit it here or else" golf course. Narrow fairways, thick rough generally doesn't produce "interesting" golf. One point that Fried Egg pointed out is that there is some cool topography at Valhalla that they have essentially covered up with thick rough. So you don't really get to see how the ball would react to it or use it when playing. If the playing corridors were expanded there might be something there. Anyway, I find it hard to evaluate golf courses on TV because so much of the elevation and topography doesn't really "pop" on TV.

As for Quail Hollow, I will likely get to play it next year when I go to Charlotte so maybe one day I can see why so many people dislike that golf course. Seems "fine" to me but nothing really stands out, just very long and kind of "driving range" golf out there. 

I think courses like Valhalla and Quail Hollow are designed with a different purpose in mind to some degree. As major championship hosts they want to challenge the best players, and from a superstar standpoint most of them bomb it and hit long irons great. These courses are a great way to get Rory, Xander, Brooks, Scottie, Rahm, etc. near the top.

I also heard it mention and this might come through from time to time on TV is that the fairways have these gentle slope but then the rough has humps and bumps that are much more severe and don't fit. I just think it makes it less interesting. Firm and wide gives options and I feel gives more variety of games that can win, which for super star development is not great. I was built in the 80s so lots of artificial elements and that just generally is not my favorite courses to play like you said. I think someone described that there are 14 non-par threes and you just grab driver on all of them and that is a bit boring.

[RetiredBoomer]

On 4/19/2024 at 1:19 PM, ejgaudette said:

I am sure this is not going to be the most popular thread, but I have been getting very interested in and reading up on golf course architecture and have no desire to join another forum so hopefully there are a some folks on here that would like to talk about some of this stuff from time to time.

Just recently read Geoff Shackelford's great book on this topic, hence the title of this thread. I also have ready some work on Fried Egg Golf, https://thefriedegg.com/, they have some good archived content and share some books. I also read George C Thomas's book Golf Course Architecture in America. It was just fascinating to ready especially last year before the the US Open at LACC, a course he designed.

Even with the title I do want to adhere to Geoff Shackelford in that this will not be overly technical, no need to call humps near a green hummocks or anything like that.

I will just leave this great image from George Thomas's book that got me drawing some holes this way that I will share soon. Also just fascinating to see how he was thinking about this hole and how it could be played by multiple skill levels.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts!

I have my own controversial opinion about course architecture.

I think using up 150 acres of prime real estate to build a course that challenges elite players is a complete waste of land.

I think that EVERY golf course should be built with recreational players and relatively speedy play in mind.   Making one of the great touring players struggle to shoot 70 or 72 is the wrong approach from my point of view.

Elite players should be playing on courses that typical recreational players can enjoy, and they should be threatening to break 60 on a good day.    

That's my own take.  

I certainly expect other views to be well represented in contrast.

 

[ejgaudette]

2 minutes ago, RetiredBoomer said:

I have my own controversial opinion about course architecture.

I think using up 150 acres of prime real estate to build a course that challenges elite players is a complete waste of land.

I think that EVERY golf course should be built with recreational players and relatively speedy play in mind.   Making one of the great touring players struggle to shoot 70 or 72 is the wrong approach from my point of view.

Elite players should be playing on courses that typical recreational players can enjoy, and they should be threatening to break 60 on a good day.    

That's my own take.  

I certainly expect other views to be well represented in contrast.

 

Well for sure 99.9% of courses should be thought of this way, given how few courses will host PGA tour events never mind majors. Though a truly great course should provide challenges to all skill levels with options of play that allow lesser players to move around hazards, though most likely meaning a bogey is a good score playing that way.

[vandyland]

55 minutes ago, RetiredBoomer said:

I think that EVERY golf course should be built with recreational players and relatively speedy play in mind. 

I tend to agree that waaay more golf courses should be built this way but there should probably be a few stout tests out there for the masochists. 

Also, a funny point about Valhalla (and courses like it), while there are probably a lot of good golfers in their membership there are also probably plenty of 20+ hdcps that probably just get their teeth kicked in round after round out there. That I really don't understand. These are the same guys who brag about how hard their golf course is, how fast the greens are, how thick the rough is, etc. and they probably couldn't break 80 from the forward tees at the local muni.