Routing

Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
In my rather superficial interest in course architecture, never having read any of the classic tomes, I have lately been grinding an axe.



Originally, the central points came to mind in part due to being left-handed and seeing holes as either setting up for a righty or lefty. It's mostly a dislike for architecture that assumes we all play from the same side of the ball. My example being that if all the longer dog legs play as a draw tee shot for a right-handed player.



That idea evolved into noticing the difference between how a clockwise vs. anti or counter-clockwise routing would effect the draw vs. fade player differently from each side of the ball.



I've often recounted that when I played Pebble Beach it seemed almost cruel that a course that attracts so many beginner players is counterclockwise and often cart path only with the ocean to the right side of the seaside holes. Watching a guy trudge 150 yards east to drive his cart a 150 yards south to then walk 150 yards west is pure drudgery.



My home course for all of last year was made less interesting in my opinion when many years ago they chose to add nine into the middle of the front nine to make an "outside" 18 hole routing and an "inside" 9 hole course. The original layout seems to have a nice assortment of tee shots than the "new" course which is often lined with OB down the right. The draw off the tee is a prized shot at that club.



Recently reading reviews of many of the great links courses it appears I'm not the only one thinking about routing and how each hole sits as compared to the others, the prevailing wind, and the cardinal directions. Certainly we've all noticed that some courses play into the morning or evening sun. I say that tongue in cheek as even the most amateur of course architecture enthusiasts have read many an architect say that the piece of dirt comes first, then the routing, as far as importance to the finished product.



I pulled up some aerial photography and schematics for many of my favorite golf courses as well as some well-regarded links courses and am beginning to notice some trends. Courses are often designed as two interlaid "clam shells" for lack of a better description. In essence each 9 hole side would be exposed to 180 degrees or more of the landscape and that direction reversed on the way back. The Old Course with the shared fairways is pretty linear, but has a hook at the turn. The hook plays clockwise on the way out and counter on the way back. Old MacDonald at Bandon is an interesting dare I say complex routing. I had to draw it from the map and then simplify it to really get a gist of what was going on. But, it starts to the north, reverses to the south and then plays to sea with the turn tucked into a spiral and the finish clockwise. The front plays favoring a left to right shot, around the turn is seemingly more right to left, and then it finishes left to right again.



Clearly the architect can favor a shot shape that is against the general trend in the routing especially on the one shot holes, but it seems like an overriding factor up against the course boundaries. Without an enormous piece of land are quality architects inherently taking the perimeter of the course as a "known commodity" and then intentionally adding variety on the inside holes? Don't think I can give a TL:DR synopsis. I guess I'll know that's the case by the sound of the crickets image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

Comments

  • jvincentjvincent Members Posts: 669 ✭✭
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.



    My idea of a great golf course is one that isn't repetitive, i.e. all the holes look / feel the same and you have to hit the same shots off the tee and/or into the green.



    The available land will dictate a lot of what you can do but a good architect will be able to take nearly any piece of land and create some variety.

    Cobra F9 9* : Tour AD TP 7-S
    Cobra LTD set at 16* : Tour AD TP 8-S
    Cobra 3U set at 19.5* : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Wishon 565MC 4-PW : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Cleveland RTX3 50, 54, 58 : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Piretti Potenza 370g : Breakthrough Technology Stability Shaft - 34"

  • duffer987duffer987 Grey doesn't equal Ignore Canadian in CaliforniaMembers Posts: 9,223 ✭✭
    Phew... I've given this a couple reads now and I have to say I am stumped on the thesis image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

    Certainly a course like TOC is renowned for giving those with a R-L teeball an advantage in staying away from OB and being able to rope hook one onto a parallel fairway.

    But other courses which have a figure 8 pattern will be able to swap that during the course of a round, such as North Berwick, where the boundary is up against your right for 3 holes, then largely against your left, then against your right for the final 3.
  • jvincentjvincent Members Posts: 669 ✭✭
    duffer987 wrote:




    Certainly a course like TOC is renowned for giving those with a R-L teeball an advantage in staying away from OB and being able to rope hook one onto a parallel fairway.




    All a L-R player has to do on the Old Course is aim at the other fairway and there is plenty of room.



    When we were there we watched some guys play fades into a L-R crosswind on 18. Instead of starting their balls at the middle of the first fairway they aimed down 18. Yep, they hit the buildings to the right of the OB.

    Cobra F9 9* : Tour AD TP 7-S
    Cobra LTD set at 16* : Tour AD TP 8-S
    Cobra 3U set at 19.5* : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Wishon 565MC 4-PW : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Cleveland RTX3 50, 54, 58 : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Piretti Potenza 370g : Breakthrough Technology Stability Shaft - 34"

  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
    Give me a break, duffs... I'm admittedly a little out of the box. But you guys got the gist.



    The thesis is do the boundaries of the piece of property determine certain holes?



    Less of a thesis, more of a question.



    Maybe more WRX able... do you prefer a layout that favors your predominant miss?
  • jvincentjvincent Members Posts: 669 ✭✭
    Matt J wrote:


    Give me a break, duffs... I'm admittedly a little out of the box. But you guys got the gist.



    The thesis is do the boundaries of the piece of property determine certain holes?



    Less of a thesis, more of a question.



    Maybe more WRX able... do you prefer a layout that favors your predominant miss?




    Absolutely the boundaries of the course contribute to the design of certain holes. Do they do it well is the question.



    To my earlier point, I prefer a course that doesn't overtly favour one over the other. For example, if every hole was a dogleg left (or right) I'd pretty quickly get tired of it.

    Cobra F9 9* : Tour AD TP 7-S
    Cobra LTD set at 16* : Tour AD TP 8-S
    Cobra 3U set at 19.5* : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Wishon 565MC 4-PW : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Cleveland RTX3 50, 54, 58 : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Piretti Potenza 370g : Breakthrough Technology Stability Shaft - 34"

  • duffer987duffer987 Grey doesn't equal Ignore Canadian in CaliforniaMembers Posts: 9,223 ✭✭
    edited Jan 31, 2019 9:38pm #7
    For sure boundaries do, such as this hole at St. Enodoc I referred to a few years back, it's such a cool short 4 in part because of boundaries:


    duffer987 wrote:


    This was one of the cool short 4's I played last month. You could hit a 175yd iron and then have a tricky uphill wedge to a narrow green, cut a hybrid or fwy in the meaty bit of the fairway and have 75yds in at a better angle, or hit a driver and draw it over the first bit of farmer's fence and have it keep drawing to avoid having it bounce over the upper farmer's fence. Overcook it and be left with a tough uphill short pitch out of the rough or bunker, or if you cut your driver having to hit one of your best of the day. Admittedly a good piece of land goes a loooooooong way to making this happen, but I playing this hole was great fun. I would have liked to sit there on the tee trying all the different options, but that would have been rude image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />



    4th_StEnodoc_zps64x40egq.jpg



    Ugh, link pic is small, bigger one: http://i30.photobuck...gq.jpg~original

    Arrows point out tee, boundary to clear, and green.



    You can see that small mound to the left of the green, the other side of that is where the bunkers are so there is a difference as the crow flies.



    21876218876_271096a060.jpg




    Of course everyone likes variety, but if it's a treelined course that requires fade after fade, as a drawer of and left-misser of the golfball, I might play it less than others. There's one here in the Bay Area that is so over the top with L to R shots through the trees I really didn't get on with it and only played it once.
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
    edited Jan 31, 2019 9:41pm #8
    jvincent wrote:

    Matt J wrote:


    Give me a break, duffs... I'm admittedly a little out of the box. But you guys got the gist.



    The thesis is do the boundaries of the piece of property determine certain holes?



    Less of a thesis, more of a question.



    Maybe more WRX able... do you prefer a layout that favors your predominant miss?




    Absolutely the boundaries of the course contribute to the design of certain holes. Do they do it well is the question.



    To my earlier point, I prefer a course that doesn't overtly favour one over the other. For example, if every hole was a dogleg left (or right) I'd pretty quickly get tired of it.




    I'm with you.



    I got the stink eye from an older group of players over the weekend when on the 10th tee they asked me what I thought of the combo tees....



    I refrained from commenting, rare for me, on the 1st tee, as it was a big group and there's money in play and everyone is playing the same tee box. But, when pushed about it on the 10th tee I gave my honest thoughts about it. One guy in the group who was a "player" as Richard likes to say, when he was younger, INSISTS on the combos and he can be a bit of a bully.



    So, when I say I hate the combos. I'll play up or I'll play back (the club is short even from the tips) but why dumb out the design and play the long par 4's short and the short par 4's long, which is the combos... not to mention the defense of this course is long par 3's and they're all up, why not just move up? There's too much pride for the baby boomers, they can't brag about their 73's from the up tees, but some how the combos make it better?



    I just wish I was Bubba long and I could attack the righty hook holes with a power fade.



    So, have any of you noticed what I speak of... if the course is generally a clockwise or counter clockwise layout it's going to favor a shot shape?



    Real estate is finite and golf is dying so courses are going to be pushed into smaller parcels.



    Duffs I caught your comment on the figure 8 and am looking forward to North Berwick. It's ingenious to make an 8 so you get a transition, but it's also confusing if you come back to the same spot too often i.e. Bandon Crossings. I've been asked about that course multiple times this week and don't have much to say other than it's confusing and bumpy.



    Edited to add: we were posting at the same time, but I like that hole. It looks to have a bunch of elevation, is wind at play? 323 from the tips it's borderline driveable for the big boys. I'd guess most guys just play driver up the right? Where is it btw, if you don't mind that I ask?
  • duffer987duffer987 Grey doesn't equal Ignore Canadian in CaliforniaMembers Posts: 9,223 ✭✭
    edited Feb 1, 2019 12:00pm #9
    Could have got lost in the text there, but it's St. Enodoc GC, a links course in the Southwest of England.

    Playing from the regular markers I get to go over the OB stone fence twice. That last pic is where my teeball ended up, which left me a short pitch in. It's the second of a four hole stretch that is quite something.



    At North Berwick it really is a 6 hole counter-clockwise loop out and back from the clubhouse and then an 10 hole clockwise loop, two par 3s (including Redan on the way back in) bridge the loops together and that's where you have a big shared teeing ground between the two.
  • cardoustiecardoustie haha, we don't play for 5's Tasmania to CanadaMembers Posts: 12,201 ✭✭
    OP



    I get what you are saying



    Many courses are ruined by too many holes that curve in one direction. My home club has a lot of R-L holes .. I draw it off the tee so it helps



    Ironically, all 4 of the par 3's favour a L-R shot .. strange



    It's a great piece land in a big valley where all the holes are isolated

    i think a course like Firestone is awful, straight back and forth all day long
    Ping G400 LST 11* Oban Revenge 65x
    Callaway x2hot 14.5* 3 Deep Oban Gold 65s
    Callaway x2hot 18.5* 5 Deep Oban Purple 55x
    Callaway Apex 4h 23* Mitsu KK 80s
    Callaway Apex 5h 26* Mitsu KK 80s
    Ping Blueprint 6i DG xp115 x100
    Ping Blueprint 7-PW DG s400 orange dot
    Vokey sm2 TVD M grind 50*, 54* & 60* DG s400 Onyx
    Piretti Matera Elite (torched)
  • BNGLBNGL Members Posts: 1,702 ✭✭
    cardoustie wrote:
    OP



    I get what you are saying



    Many courses are ruined by too many holes that curve in one direction. My home club has a lot of R-L holes .. I draw it off the tee so it helps



    Ironically, all 4 of the par 3's favour a L-R shot .. strange



    It's a great piece land in a big valley where all the holes are isolatedi think a course like Firestone is awful, straight back and forth all day long




    Lol play it then judge it.
  • duffer987duffer987 Grey doesn't equal Ignore Canadian in CaliforniaMembers Posts: 9,223 ✭✭
    BNGL wrote:

    cardoustie wrote:
    OP



    I get what you are saying



    Many courses are ruined by too many holes that curve in one direction. My home club has a lot of R-L holes .. I draw it off the tee so it helps



    Ironically, all 4 of the par 3's favour a L-R shot .. strange



    It's a great piece land in a big valley where all the holes are isolatedi think a course like Firestone is awful, straight back and forth all day long




    Lol play it then judge it.


    He didn't say specifically that course, he said LIKE that course as an example, which we can relate to.

    I'd think most golfers would prefer not to play a course that is a collection of parallel holes going back and forth. I've not played Firestone, but I concur that style doesn't hold any interest.
  • BNGLBNGL Members Posts: 1,702 ✭✭
    edited Feb 1, 2019 3:06pm #13
    duffer987 wrote:
    BNGL wrote:

    cardoustie wrote:
    OP



    I get what you are saying



    Many courses are ruined by too many holes that curve in one direction. My home club has a lot of R-L holes .. I draw it off the tee so it helps



    Ironically, all 4 of the par 3's favour a L-R shot .. strange



    It's a great piece land in a big valley where all the holes are isolatedi think a course like Firestone is awful, straight back and forth all day long




    Lol play it then judge it.


    He didn't say specifically that course, he said LIKE that course as an example, which we can relate to.

    I'd think most golfers would prefer not to play a course that is a collection of parallel holes going back and forth. I've not played Firestone, but I concur that style doesn't hold any interest.




    Firestone South is the most honest assessment and challenge of your game. It doesn’t dictate the shots like a TPC Sawgrass, or Augusta National. It allows you to score well hitting your shot whether it’s a fade or draw high or low, anyone can play there but you better hit a quality shot all day. Is it a box of sausages from the air?Sure. Is it a quality golf course that tests every facet of your game? Absolutely it does.



    I find far more interest in Firestone than Seminole and Seminole turns every which way.



  • BNGLBNGL Members Posts: 1,702 ✭✭
    They routed MJ’s new club, The Grove XXIII in a figure 8 pattern built with pace of play and the walker in mind with tees and greens basically right on top of each other.
  • Pwood28Pwood28 Members Posts: 388 ✭✭
    On the variety issue, the best tests of golf will certainly ask you to move the ball both ways, but if a course favors one direction over the other, I don't think its a disqualifies. Augusta National is good example, a lefty who knows how to fade the ball there is going to put themselves in the best position to attack the greens (look at Phil and Bubba).



    With course boundaries affecting the course layout...they absolutely effect the layout. The question the becomes how well does the architect use the natural hazards in cooperation with the greater strategy of the hole. The Road Hole is the classic good example. The Fried Egg had an interesting article on a bad example of this using the 4th hole at Torrey Pines South. You have the perfect natural hazard in the cliffs falling into the ocean, but Rees Jones (or someone on his staff) set up the preferred approach angle on the other side of the fairway, taking the ocean out of the strategy (unless you have a snap hook like me, there's no strategy to defend against that!). Pretty interesting read if you have a minute.
    WITB (short set edition)
    8 club bag (play most of my rounds with this setup):
    TM M3 440 Driver - 10.5 degree - Evenflow Black 75s
    TM M4 Hybrid - 18 degree 
    NCW Large Cavity - 24 degree 
    NCW Small Cavity - 32 & 40 degree 
    NCW MB - 48 degree 
    NCW Wedge - 56 degree 
    Putter (Still way too many to list!)

    IG: Filmooregolf
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
    PWood28, thanks for the suggestion! I'll look into it.



    Perhaps the way the game has changed into predominantly an arms race of huge towering shots it becomes less of an issue. But, for normal humans I love taking advantage of working the ball both ways. Although, I'm clearly no master, setting up for a shot where the risk reward is simply to have a shorter approach, it's a ton of fun to make the "shot." As a nobody kid from Georgia I cut my teeth on public course by RTJ Sr. - really I think it still effects how I look at architecture. I love the simplicity of the right type of parkland dog leg hole. I like the "short line" higher and flatter with a true feeling of it being the "A" position, perhaps truly penal if you get a little too A. I was a bit perplexed when I 'came back' to golf a few years ago and the driveable par 4 was a 'thing' - like one one on each side of every golf course, but there is no curve or risk reward in many other than simply getting too close, short sided, or hitting a greenside bunker.



    BNGL, me and MJ we have this thing in common, it's our INITIALS! Actually, super glad you posted that because I heard about that project in its infancy and never knew that he went through with it. I'll have to dig around and take a look at the layout.



    One course I played a good bit as a kid, and it's still around, that's what I remember about it... parallel holes with trees in the middle. I didn't like it at the time. A short knocking kid and guys would pound one so far from the fairway, but if it got through or over the trees they had a look. Drove me crazy. Also, I just don't like "sister" holes. I feel like I'm on an escalator if I see a "mirror hole" that rewards the same tee shot and approach shot with the same risk/reward. I'd imagine it's a monumental task to design an interesting layout with parallel holes. Not to say it isn't true at Firestone.
  • BNGLBNGL Members Posts: 1,702 ✭✭
    Matt J wrote:
    PWood28, thanks for the suggestion! I'll look into it.



    Perhaps the way the game has changed into predominantly an arms race of huge towering shots it becomes less of an issue. But, for normal humans I love taking advantage of working the ball both ways. Although, I'm clearly no master, setting up for a shot where the risk reward is simply to have a shorter approach, it's a ton of fun to make the "shot." As a nobody kid from Georgia I cut my teeth on public course by RTJ Sr. - really I think it still effects how I look at architecture. I love the simplicity of the right type of parkland dog leg hole. I like the "short line" higher and flatter with a true feeling of it being the "A" position, perhaps truly penal if you get a little too A. I was a bit perplexed when I 'came back' to golf a few years ago and the driveable par 4 was a 'thing' - like one one on each side of every golf course, but there is no curve or risk reward in many other than simply getting too close, short sided, or hitting a greenside bunker.



    BNGL, me and MJ we have this thing in common, it's our INITIALS! Actually, super glad you posted that because I heard about that project in its infancy and never knew that he went through with it. I'll have to dig around and take a look at the layout.



    One course I played a good bit as a kid, and it's still around, that's what I remember about it... parallel holes with trees in the middle. I didn't like it at the time. A short knocking kid and guys would pound one so far from the fairway, but if it got through or over the trees they had a look. Drove me crazy. Also, I just don't like "sister" holes. I feel like I'm on an escalator if I see a "mirror hole" that rewards the same tee shot and approach shot with the same risk/reward. I'd imagine it's a monumental task to design an interesting layout with parallel holes. Not to say it isn't true at Firestone.




    He went through with it although they hit a rough patch with permitting and then a potentially huge problem of polluting the local water ways. But it was all taken care of. His place is “open” they’re mowing it all regularly and got it in great shape. His property is maybe 10 miles from mine, and the designers and crew came to visit because we have the same type of turf as they put in.
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
    edited Feb 2, 2019 12:36pm #18
    I can see some advantages to the "figure 8" pattern. For example if to started with the clubhouse at the top of the 8, build a snack shack / comfort station / bathrooms in the middle of the 8, and bathrooms out at the turn at the bottom of the 8, then you would never be but a couple holes from a bathroom.



    I'm not crazy about courses that back track over their own routings in general. It just seems to introduce a bit of confusion, slow pace, and take away from the general "walk in the park" ambience. But, an exclusive private like MJ's club won't get more than 50 or 60 rounds a day, so I wouldn't imagine it will be a problem.



    We have a local track that's a RTJ Jr. layout that is a figure 8 with the Clubhouse in the center of the bowtie, but the direction general goes in the same direction with reversing course being the predominant way he added variety. That and using the elevation which is much more prominent on the back than the front. Ironically one huge hill side probably created the biggest headaches as the most abundant complaints can all be traced back to that hill. He sandwiched a "drivable" par 4 into it, but it's probably the least favored hole in the course, and then he had to make a big green to tee walk back up the hill when you come back to it between 15 and 16.



    He did generally follow the idea of just throw a bath house in the middle of each side, and generally guys really like that. Feels civilized. Another course has portajohns out on the course and guys universally complain. I don't really care that much if it's not in the middle of the city and you don't feel like you can just duck behind a tree.



    Making the juncture back at the clubhouse actually makes it less distracting and allows guys to run into the bar and bathroom. It's a pretty long walk past the practice area to get from 9 to 10 though.
  • Tim GavrichTim Gavrich Golf Travel Guru Featured Writer Posts: 191 ✭✭
    Routing is interesting to me. I've spent countless hours looking at golf courses on Google Maps/Google Earth.



    One very effective general sort of routing can be observed at Sonoma Golf Club. There, on a rectangular piece of ground, the front nine is routed clockwise around the perimeter of the property, while the back nine is routed counterclockwise around the interior. There are a couple kinks and reversals, but this is the general layout. It works because it has the golfer confront different wind directions regularly, as there are only two times when the golfer plays two consecutive holes in the same direction. The four par threes play in three different directions (a flaw of the routing is that both par 3s on the back play in the same direction, but they're different lengths, which is good).



    Of course, for lefties like us, this means that the property line is on the cut-side, but it's just a function of statistics: most golfers are righties, and most golfers miss on the cut-/slice-side, so they get the non-OB misses in a lot of cases.



    For the most part, the advent and popularity of golf carts killed routing as a key skill in putting a golf course together. It's a real shame, because walking a golf course is life-extending good exercise, and compact courses are quicker to play than clumsily spread-out ones.
    Senior Writer, Golf Advisor

    TM M3 10.5* - UST V2
    Srixon Z F65 15* & 19*
    TM V-Steel 21*
    Titleist 710 MB 4-PW
    Cleveland RTX-3 52* and 58*
    Evnroll ER5 (370g)
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭


    Routing is interesting to me. I've spent countless hours looking at golf courses on Google Maps/Google Earth.



    One very effective general sort of routing can be observed at Sonoma Golf Club. There, on a rectangular piece of ground, the front nine is routed clockwise around the perimeter of the property, while the back nine is routed counterclockwise around the interior. There are a couple kinks and reversals, but this is the general layout. It works because it has the golfer confront different wind directions regularly, as there are only two times when the golfer plays two consecutive holes in the same direction. The four par threes play in three different directions (a flaw of the routing is that both par 3s on the back play in the same direction, but they're different lengths, which is good).



    Of course, for lefties like us, this means that the property line is on the cut-side, but it's just a function of statistics: most golfers are righties, and most golfers miss on the cut-/slice-side, so they get the non-OB misses in a lot of cases.



    For the most part, the advent and popularity of golf carts killed routing as a key skill in putting a golf course together. It's a real shame, because walking a golf course is life-extending good exercise, and compact courses are quicker to play than clumsily spread-out ones.




    Good post, thanks.



    Couldn't agree more when it comes to motorized golf carts. I can make a long-winded argument that the golf cart is responsible for many of our game's problems. From increased liability, weird two man social dynamics, making it accessible to too many people at the "height" was obviously going to create a "fall" in popularity, we lose the emphasis on straight ball flight when we can zoom up and look for our wayward shot, the added expense in impermeable surface in the form of cart paths, added compaction in landings and around greens.... on and on. Not to mention we lost our caddie programs where young men and women learned to love the game.
  • duffer987duffer987 Grey doesn't equal Ignore Canadian in CaliforniaMembers Posts: 9,223 ✭✭
    edited Feb 7, 2019 6:59pm #21
    Now now Matt image/offtopic.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':offtopic:' /> image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



    I do think housing estate courses did lead to the creation of a "singles" mentality for routing golf holes, rather than the "album" concept you get with a traditional contiguous golfing property.

    At a high level you may be in the same genre (Florida waterpark, Texas hill country, California canyons, etc...) with independent holes on a single course, the same way you might be doing pop, country, or hip-hop singles, but there is nothing bringing it all together.
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
    duffer987 wrote:


    Now now Matt image/offtopic.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':offtopic:' /> image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



    I do think housing estate courses did lead to the creation of a "singles" mentality for routing golf holes, rather than the "album" concept you get with a traditional contiguous golfing property.

    At a high level you may be in the same genre (Florida waterpark, Texas hill country, California canyons, etc...) with independent holes on a single course, the same way you might be doing pop, country, or hip-hop singles, but there is nothing bringing it all together.




    I like the analogy.



    I'm more of an album guy. Still have a turntable and listen to vinyl every now and again.



    Carts actually bother me less on the real estate courses with big green to tee expanses because they are part and parcel to the experience. A very walkable layout with the occasional cart for those that really cannot walk is of no bother either. The default to riding in a cart thing is where I take issue. Why a group of healthy adults would chose to bump around inside a little buggy rather than ambulate is nonsensical to me, but I admit I am biased. Carry on image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />
  • tokeybtokeyb Gonna get better OmahaClubWRX Posts: 383 ClubWRX
    Loving this thread, even though I do not currently have a strong opinion on the matter. When healthy enough, I walk and enjoy it. When I ride, I enjoy it. And a good layout is always appreciated.
    Mizuno ST-180 10.5*
    TEE 3w 15*
    TM Burner Rescue 4 & 5
    Cobra King Forged (5-G)
    Scratch 8820 (56*)
    Odyssey White Hot Rx 2, Tour Snsr 106cc
    Project(a)
    **Right at single digits - gonna get better**
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
    Last night I picked Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course out of the bookcase to read before bed. He has a chapter on routing where he actually draws the little stick figure direction of play maps like I was playing with off of Google Earth. Basically, you just draw a straight line for each intended shot and see how the routing looks from above.



    He echos many sentiments that I've long felt were crucial to the "flow" of a golf course. He actually describes it like a composition of music. The right use of the land in concert with a nice flow of different 1, 2, and 3 shot holes with the difficulty mixed up as well. Ultimately, I often look at the top 5 hardest holes as the meat of the golf course (maybe because I usually play off of around a 5). If two of those holes are within 2 holes of each other, or if there are 3 in 5 holes, then that's the "crescendo" of the movement to me. I like that stretch to be 12 through 15. I am an bit of a traditionalist and still play a lot of "match play" like formats, so 16, 17, and 18 can be somewhat immaterial to the competition. We often allow a press, so that can make those holes interesting. If you've held a great score together for 15 holes I really like some scoring opportunities on the last three. I also like to reward the golfer who is still bold by the end of the round.



    He also makes an interesting point, that once again I have agreed with for some time, that between not wanting to be viewed as a "penal" architect, most designers had by the big golf boom of the 90's, become very narrow in their approach employing near templates. The short par 4 with a super tricked up green complex, the longest reachable par 5 (nearly "untouchable") with a relatively easy green. The longer the shot value, the easier the green complex. Gets a little boring really.
  • Dr. HackDr. Hack Members Posts: 53 ✭✭
    Matt J wrote:




    Couldn't agree more when it comes to motorized golf carts. I can make a long-winded argument that the golf cart is responsible for many of our game's problems. From increased liability, weird two man social dynamics, making it accessible to too many people at the "height" was obviously going to create a "fall" in popularity, we lose the emphasis on straight ball flight when we can zoom up and look for our wayward shot, the added expense in impermeable surface in the form of cart paths, added compaction in landings and around greens.... on and on. Not to mention we lost our caddie programs where young men and women learned to love the game.




    Gil Hanse makes a very similar argument regarding golf carts being the antithesis of modern course design. Erik Anders Lang did a podcast with him recently, I think it's on youtube.



    What makes design so interesting to me is the complementary nature of all the elements like routing and strategy - they all interplay with each other. The land itself will naturally define the routing, but shouldn't limit a good course to a repetitive type or shape of hole. If you have to squeeze a course onto a less-than-desirable plot of land, the property boundaries will have a larger effect.



    Ill second that the Fried Egg analysis of Torrey Pines' 4th hole is awesome and is a great example to use when explaining aspects of golf course design. I have since noticed a lot of Rees Jones courses have similar elements -- the guy is seemingly not very well studied in his own craft!
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
    edited Feb 26, 2019 5:47pm #26
    Dr. Hack wrote:

    Matt J wrote:


    Couldn't agree more when it comes to motorized golf carts. I can make a long-winded argument that the golf cart is responsible for many of our game's problems. From increased liability, weird two man social dynamics, making it accessible to too many people at the "height" was obviously going to create a "fall" in popularity, we lose the emphasis on straight ball flight when we can zoom up and look for our wayward shot, the added expense in impermeable surface in the form of cart paths, added compaction in landings and around greens.... on and on. Not to mention we lost our caddie programs where young men and women learned to love the game.




    Gil Hanse makes a very similar argument regarding golf carts being the antithesis of modern course design. Erik Anders Lang did a podcast with him recently, I think it's on youtube.



    What makes design so interesting to me is the complementary nature of all the elements like routing and strategy - they all interplay with each other. The land itself will naturally define the routing, but shouldn't limit a good course to a repetitive type or shape of hole. If you have to squeeze a course onto a less-than-desirable plot of land, the property boundaries will have a larger effect.



    Ill second that the Fried Egg analysis of Torrey Pines' 4th hole is awesome and is a great example to use when explaining aspects of golf course design. I have since noticed a lot of Rees Jones courses have similar elements -- the guy is seemingly not very well studied in his own craft!




    Not too terribly surprising that Mr. Hanse and I would share some opinions. Trying very hard to make it through the podcast, but EAL and I are like oil and water. His very essence grates on my nerves. image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />



    It's pretty cool, when you see a "design obstacle" - big slope, weird low swampy area, and find that an architect has really used it in a very clever manner.



    I'm not a big fan of Rees. I like his father and brother's work more. The only track I can think of that I've played just simply seems squeezed in.... windy, quasi-links, nothing noteworthy but a prevailing wind that nearly makes golf impossible.
  • jvincentjvincent Members Posts: 669 ✭✭
    Matt J wrote:


    I'm not a big fan of Rees. I like his father and brother's work more. The only track I can think of that I've played just simply seems squeezed in.... windy, quasi-links, nothing noteworthy but a prevailing wind that nearly makes golf impossible.




    Rees Jones did Pinehurst #7. Guess which one of the Pinehurst courses I HATE .

    Cobra F9 9* : Tour AD TP 7-S
    Cobra LTD set at 16* : Tour AD TP 8-S
    Cobra 3U set at 19.5* : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Wishon 565MC 4-PW : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Cleveland RTX3 50, 54, 58 : Nippon Modus3 130-S
    Piretti Potenza 370g : Breakthrough Technology Stability Shaft - 34"

  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
    I don't know what the excuse would be for #7. Sand Pines just seems very poorly routed. I think some guys could not resist taking work even if the project was likely to be a dog.



    Probably not fair of me to judge based on one design, something makes me believe I've played other courses he revised as well.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,659 ✭✭


    For the most part, the advent and popularity of golf carts killed routing as a key skill in putting a golf course together. It's a real shame, because walking a golf course is life-extending good exercise, and compact courses are quicker to play than clumsily spread-out ones.




    While I love to walk golf courses, I must point out another view. The advent of golf carts has greatly expanded the options available to course architects. Without golf carts, some of the best courses in the world would not have been built. Some examples are Cabo del Sol, all of the Desert Mountain courses and many others.



    Just because a course is spread out does not mean it is clumsy. It only means it is spread out and difficult to walk.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,659 ✭✭
    edited Mar 11, 2019 8:27am #30
    Matt J wrote:

    duffer987 wrote:


    Now now Matt image/offtopic.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':offtopic:' /> image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



    I do think housing estate courses did lead to the creation of a "singles" mentality for routing golf holes, rather than the "album" concept you get with a traditional contiguous golfing property.

    At a high level you may be in the same genre (Florida waterpark, Texas hill country, California canyons, etc...) with independent holes on a single course, the same way you might be doing pop, country, or hip-hop singles, but there is nothing bringing it all together.




    I like the analogy.



    I'm more of an album guy. Still have a turntable and listen to vinyl every now and again.



    Carts actually bother me less on the real estate courses with big green to tee expanses because they are part and parcel to the experience. A very walkable layout with the occasional cart for those that really cannot walk is of no bother either. The default to riding in a cart thing is where I take issue. Why a group of healthy adults would chose to bump around inside a little buggy rather than ambulate is nonsensical to me, but I admit I am biased. Carry on image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />




    Just remember that not all golfers are "healthy adults". I play with a few golfers who would be sitting at home if it were not for golf carts. Good health is one of the most valuable aspects of life. Enjoy it while you have it.



    So, one way to look at golf carts is that they have enabled many more golfers to enjoy the game.
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭

    Matt J wrote:

    duffer987 wrote:


    Now now Matt image/offtopic.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':offtopic:' /> image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



    I do think housing estate courses did lead to the creation of a "singles" mentality for routing golf holes, rather than the "album" concept you get with a traditional contiguous golfing property.

    At a high level you may be in the same genre (Florida waterpark, Texas hill country, California canyons, etc...) with independent holes on a single course, the same way you might be doing pop, country, or hip-hop singles, but there is nothing bringing it all together.




    I like the analogy.



    I'm more of an album guy. Still have a turntable and listen to vinyl every now and again.



    Carts actually bother me less on the real estate courses with big green to tee expanses because they are part and parcel to the experience. A very walkable layout with the occasional cart for those that really cannot walk is of no bother either. The default to riding in a cart thing is where I take issue. Why a group of healthy adults would chose to bump around inside a little buggy rather than ambulate is nonsensical to me, but I admit I am biased. Carry on image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />




    Just remember that not all golfers are "healthy adults". I play with a few golfers who would be sitting at home if it were not for golf carts. Good health is one of the most valuable aspects of life. Enjoy it while you have it.



    So, one way to look at golf carts is that they have enabled many more golfers to enjoy the game.




    I buy that, I truly do. There are a load of local players, including some loved ones, like my uncle, who cannot play without a golf cart. The issue I take, is that I feel there needs to be some balance. A cart should be a tool to keep playing while you go through occupational rehab / physical therapy stuff to get back to walking. There's no reason most men or women cannot regain their ability to walk 9 holes if not 18. And if your health problems involve an injury or chronic disease that will never allow you to comfortably walk then by all means take a cart. I think we are way past the point in this country to go back, but I think of resorts like Bandon, and how many guys I know actually started a healthier lifestyle and prioritized some exercise just to enjoy it. IMO, it would be a healthier society and a better game if the "gold standard" was to walk your rounds.
Sign In or Register to comment.