[Ran Morrissett]

On one side, there is Cypress Point  

On the other, there is MPCC - Dunes  

And in the middle, there is Spyglass Hill  

What ever happened to the art of routing?

Did access to heavy machinery lead to the demise in clever routings? Certainly housing developments didn't help but still...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

For the best answer ask Tom Fazio--The King Of All Routing.

Classics course architects didn't know anything about flow of scramble tournaments and how it all works in relation to placement of the clubhouse as well as housing and other important criteria.

150 yards+ between holes is factor that must be followed with the utmost urgnency. Without that simple rule of thumb you have a golf course that just doesn't work and even more importantly, doesn't drain.

Another important factor is that the course take full advantage of the framing. Each hole must be a hole unto itself. NO EXCEPTIONS!

If a small mountain gets in the way of a routing, one only has to simply remove it with earthmoving.

[Mark_Fine]

Clearly the ability (new technology) to "build" whatever you need has had a major impact.  I personally think there are only a handful if any architects today who could design a routing as clever as Lehigh's for example.  On a site like that you'd unfortunately end up with a Tattersall or something equivalent.

But what about on sites where the land features themselves offer little in the way of "architecture value" like in the desert - sites like Talking Stick and Shadow Creek,... other than the obvious, what does the architect focus on in a routing and what makes one really clever?

[Tim_Weiman]

Ran:

From time to time I've heard architects considered 10 or 20 routings before making their final selection.

I have no idea what the norm is.

But, since you mentioned Spyglass, I'm wondering if anyone knows any alternate routing plans that RTJ considered and for some reason rejected.

Did he ever consider finishing closer to the water?  Did he feel Mackenzie had already done that?  Was there any plan to make not one but two trips to the sand dunes?

Wouldn't it be better if we could discuss a course like Spyglass with such information available?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ran,
It seems to me that in modern design the  definition of routing is weighted towards "flow of traffic" and in the designs of the Golden Age it meant "best use" of what was available in creating holes of architectural value, no matter if there were back to back par 3's, etc..

[Lou_Duran]

Most large metropolitan areas are devoid of good golf sites at a price that makes development feasible.  As has been discussed on numerous threads, today's architects are working under very difficult regulatory conditions on tracts that are not ideally suited for golf.

Like most on this site, I have a great admiration for the work of MacKenzie, Ross, Tillinghast, and others of their era.  What I can't figure out is why there is so much disrespect and disdain voiced here for many of the well known contemporary architects.

Tom Fazio is not the anti-Christ, and he may have some very legitimate thoughts regarding the routing of a golf course.  After touring much of the new Dallas National Golf Club this afternoon (in the grassing stage at this time), I had the chance to speak to Mr. Fazio for a few minutes.  At DNGC he was given an extremely hilly 400 acre tract to work with.  The soil is very poor (had to import much of the material) and full of rocks.  The client told him to build 18 outstanding, memorable holes and that is what he set out to do.  I couldn't tell how successful he was with his routing, or how well the holes blend in their sequence.  Being spread out over such a large tract and with the great elevation changes, it will not be a course that is walkable.  If routing is partially rated inversely to the distance from the greens to the tees, then DNGC will fail on this measure.  But based on what I saw and heard this afternoon, I think that it will become one of the best courses in this part of the country.  Can you have a great golf course with an average routing?  How much of a factor is the proximity of the greens to the tees and being walkable in determining the quality of a course?        

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
I am not an architect but if I were given a featureless piece of property and some earthmoving equipment I would procede something like this:

#1. Find the predominant wind pattern.

#2. Find where the sun travels in the golf season.

#3. Identify the finite number of architectural values found in the best holes and use them in as imaginative a way as possible, keeping in mind #'s 1 & 2.

Starting from this base a good routing would probably be found sooner or later on most properties, I think

[Bill_McBride]

Consider a great routing on a course that's not remotely top 100 ---- Sonoma GC north of San Francisco.  The 1st hole runs straight south. The 18th hole runs straight north. The front nine is a loop around the perimeter of the property, clock wise. The back nine is a loop inside the front nine, counter clock wise. A slicer never need fear hitting a ball OB.  No tee is more than 25 yards from the previous green.  No consecutive holes except the par 3 4th and par 4 5th play in the same direction. It's like a text book on how to route a course.  Once when he was asked what was the best routed course he ever played, he replied, "You probably never heard of it, but it's the Sonoma Golf Course."

[Bill_McBride]

Typing too fast.  The "he" in the previous post was Sam Snead.

[Chris_Hervochon]

The King of Routing was/is not Fazio.  No way.  Granted the man can route a golf course quite well given all the specifications and criteria, but the buck stops there.  Case in point, Pine Hill G.C.  It is touted as a sure fire bet for the top 100 in the next couple years.  Well, I saw the property before it was built, during it being built, and played it when it was finished; and let me tell you, he could have come up with a much better finished product then what he turned out.  That propety was pure gold.  Trust me, given the budget that I am sure he had, I believe any single person that posts on this board could have come up with a design that would be recognized as a classic when it was finished.  The problem is he ruins every site he gets by moving so much dirt the property is not even recognizable anymore.  Did anybody read his book?  After about 50 pages every single hole looked THE SAME. *yawns* Think about it...With all the choice pieces of property he gets, and his budgets, wouldn't you think his designs would be absolutely phenomenal and he would own half of the top 100?(a slight exaggeration on my part, but you get the point)

[Jason_Henham]

Lou,

I think we all understand the issue with many modern courses being built on less than inspiring sites and the architects having to deal with those sites. However, I think that is why Ran specifically highlighted those three course, because they're on similar tracts and quality of land, yet yielded different results in terms of routing.

I don't know much about Shadow Creek or any of Fazio's other work. However, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to produce a world class course starting with featureless land. Can anyone provide examples and discuss any great courses built in the golden age on where natural features were few and far between?

Jason

[BillV]

First of all, if I hadn't said it all year, Pine Hill is the most monumental disappointment of the year for me.  Thanks Chris for reminding me to post that.  Its routing is nearly as bad as Tattersall on the back (respectively) and that is really saying something.  The holes themselves with the exceptions of #7, 9, 17 and maybe 18 can only be called well-framed, weak, photographable and lacking.  If it's top hundred, I give up, unless the category is photographable or Doak's Dumb Blondes in the Gazeteer.

A propos the topic,  the routing of The Architect's Golf Club wasn't too bad.  Easily walkable with a reasonable flow.

Both are modern courses within 70 miles of each other built as (To use Fazio's term) core courses.  Both are obviously very much "created" courses.  As said in Philly Whaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuup?

When walking is put in the back seat for whatever reason, routing most often goes out the window, plain and simple.  Some reasons such as revenue, housing, developers land plan are legitimate, but don't expect a course to receive laurels if this litmus fails.

Apache Stronghold is borderline walkable and retains a fine routing.  There are some on the border, so to speak.

Maybe Tom Fazio hasn't been asked to route a course well.  I really like his Galloway, but the routing has a few yucky glitches.

[Slag_Bandoon]

Carts have changed the mindset and standards of routing value.  Evil-ution of the game.

[Peter Galea]

Chris writes: "That propety was pure gold. Trust me, given the budget that I am sure he had, I believe any single person that posts on this board could have come up with a design that would be recognized as a classic when it was finished."

Chris, please take no offense, but I have to differ on this point. If money and good land were all it took to build a classic golf course, why are there so many "dogs" being built? I'll bet there are no more than a handful of contributors to this board that could design a solid golf course, no less a "classic".

Let's not take ourselves too seriously.

[aclayman]

I've had discussions before on how to get Spy's routing better. Not that it's that bad as Ran points out, it's mediocre.
The evilution of the discussion was me suggesting that the course maybe should start on ten but then you have the ocean holes in the middle of the round.
What we came up with was a course that started on the seventh and then that made the finnishers awesome. There were some other decent ideas but they involved changing the design of certain holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I suspect that Bill McBride has touched on, what seemed to be basic routing 101, employed by the classic architects.

Club house location was an integral part of the routing process, opening holes didn't go to the East, nor closing holes to the west, though there were exceptions.
Nines had clock and counter clockwise movement, and direction changes were abundant.

I've said it before, somewhere in time, there was a departure from, a disavowing of, and a disassociation with classic design principles.  Individual creativity became the rage, ignoring many of the design tenets established and passed down over the ages.

I don't buy the "no more good sites" theory.
Are we to accept that only locations near the old, big cities were good sites for golf courses.

Does GCGC sit on a good site, or a plain piece of property with a little roll ?
Can you find sites as good or better than GCGC, I say yes, in abundance.  When GCGC was first opened, roads traversed the property, and the town today still has easements through the golf course.

I will say that environmental issues have been a major impediment in building, designing and routing golf courses.  

One can't fault architects for inheriting those very difficult and very real problems.
The question is, would the owner select a less troublesome site, had they known all the environmental problems up front ?

The short answer, ego, and denial of legacy have been the biggest contributors to losing the art of routing.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong

There is a new course being built on the North Fork in Long Island.  One nine loops counter clockwise, the other clock wise.
Both nines tee off to the south, one nine ends northwest, the other to the east, both nines start and finish at the elevated clubhouse, with about 13 or more directional changes.  Plus, Plus, Plus, there is a good deal of wind that influences the site.
It seems like a pretty classic routing to me

Fortunately, few environmental problems hampered design.

[Rick Shefchik]

Hear, hear, on the effect of carts on the art of routing.

There is a wonderful Jeffrey Brauer/Lanny Wadkins-designed course named Giants Ridge in Biwabik, Minn. (80 miles north of Duluth) that draws players from all over Minnesota because of its conditioning (remarkable for that climate), scenery (built on heavily wooded foothills near a ski area) and playability. It would be a joy to walk, but the portage between the 12th and 13th holes is about a mile in length, and it's another mile or so back again between the 16th and 17th holes.

So, instead of enjoying the sounds of nature on a pleasant walk through a spectacular piece of Minnesota's north woods, you mostly notice the echo of cart motors.

Undoubtedly there were some topographical issues to deal with, but when holes become as distanced from each other as they are at Giants Ridge, the idea of routing becomes meaningless.

I'm afraid that, as new courses continue to be built farther and farther from population centers, they will continue to expand; if the architect, in designing the fifth hole, believes he's found the perfect location for a risk-reward par 5 -- and it's only a 20-minute drive from the fourth green -- that's where it's going to go.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Lou,
Next time you see him tell him I send him my best.

Believe it or not, I think the only good thing about Oak Creek in Irvine is the routing. It leaves the clubhouse at #1; Comes back at #9. Leaves at #10 and comes back #15, leaves again at #16 and returns on #18.

And in tune with Bill V., since it is a "Core" golf course, I think he could have at least designed some decent golf holes on it for the $17 million it took to build it. (Not counting the land on which the Irvine company already owned)

The routing for both Pelican Hill's courses is pretty sad. But what they heck, its got a view, right?

[T_MacWood]

Many modern designers use poor sites and regulatory constraints as an excuse. But one need only look at their efforts on wonderful sites with a relatively free hand to judge their routing ability. They do not route, they build.

[Lou_Duran]

Pete:

I thought that you knew that anyone who played golf for X number of years and had a "special" relationship with the game obtained the ability through divine intervention to design and construct THE "perfect course".  Some of us even believe that we are instinctively gifted agronomistas as well as highly effective general managers.  Armed with first amendment rights and the relative anonimity of the Internet, we have license to besmirch people like Fazio and Nicklaus whose work (or success) we don't care for.

No matter the eloquence of our writing, or the number of books we've read, golf is still a game to be played and enjoyed. We do derive substantial satisfaction talking about some esoteric aspect of design or by recounting our exploits over adult bevarages at the 19th hole.  But playing is still what it is mostly about, and many of the architects we revile with gusto are the ones that are in the hottest demand.  I have only played a half-a-dozen Fazio courses, and admitedly, I thought that most were rather ordinary for my taste.  However, without exception, the courses were very playable, the routings made a lot of sense, and judging from the amount of play, they were meeting the demands of the members and guests.  As was suggested by another commentator some time back, some on this site (me included) probably should play more and perhaps post less.    

[Tim_Weiman]

Chris Hervochon:

I haven't seen Pine Hill.  Thus, I really can't offer any comments on the course itself or the work done by Fazio's team.

However, I think it fair to say your post fits into the category of "Fazio bashing".

Why?

You told us you think Fazio & Co did a poor job and that nearly anyone could have done better. Given that you seem to be fimiliar with the site, I'd much rather hear your thoughts on what SHOULD have been done.

That would make for far more interesting discussion.

Beyond that I don't think I could have come up with a design that would be "classic".  Golf architecture has a very seductive quality to it.  How often does one look at an undeveloped piece of land and see a golf hole waiting to be developed?  That's not hard.  But, designing an entire course to the standards of "classic" is a different and far more difficult exercise.

I don't view Fazio as "The King of Routing", but it would simply be better to layout and discuss alternatives where you think the effort was so flawed.

[Chris_Hervochon]

Alright, now that I think about it maybe a few of my comments last night were overexaggerated and uncalled for.  My apologies, it was quite late and I was slightly delirious.  However, given that piece of land Fazio had for Pine Hill, I do think that a great many of you could have come up with a routing that was at least as good as that of Fazio's.  The reason for that statement is, in my opinion and gathering from what I have read, all of you are intelligent people and know your stuff when it comes to golf architecture.  Plus, I honestly believe creating a "just average" golf course does not take all that much talent.

Peter Galea-
Again, my sincerest apologies.  But, I believe, it does in fact take a good piece of land to make a great golf course, and yes, it does take a reasonably large budget to remove a lot of trees, pay workers, sod, etc.  However, I don't think underfunding is ever a problem with Fazio.  In fact, I know it isn't because he talks about knowing the financial securtiy of a project before he even starts.  Also, I am sure if you knew me you would agree that I do not take myself too seriously.  

I have to go...so I will continue my thoughts on Pine Hill in a while.

[kilfara]

Am I the only one who noticed the sarcasm dripping from Seňor Naccarato's post at the beginning of this thread?  

Cheers,
Darren

[kilfara]

(that was supposed to read "Senor" Naccarato, with the silly wavy line over the "n" - didn't work)

[Chris_Hervochon]

Continuing on...

The most obvious failure of Pine Hill was the inability of it to be walked.  Hundreds and hundreds of yards between tees, up and down hills.  Not fun, trust me, I had to walk it in a high school match.  Nobody walks that course, ever, I wouldn't even recommend trying.

If you have never seen the site, or the routing, I find it hard to explain how it is such a disappointment.  The terrain is kind of like a mountainous Pine Valley (kinda sorta).  They both share the same black pines, sandy soil, and native vegetation.  I must say though, I found the design of Pine Hill most uninteresting.  The shots you face there are not very thought provoking, and everything there is pretty much what you would find at a typical upscale daily-fee golf course.  It is painfully obvious some of the course was designed strictly for the views the holes afforded.  16 and 18 come to mind where you see the skyline of Philadelphi, but I think 16 was more of a marketing ploy cuz there isn't much interesting about the hole; just a long downhill par 3 with a bunker guarding the frong right of the green.  The par-5's are what you expect of Fazio.  #7 is half decent.  #1 is just straight away with a trap up by the green.  #14 is straightaway with an irrigation pond guarding the left side of the green.  Nothing really interesting here.  Par-3's are all pretty much straight forward and require mid or long irons.  The bunkering placement is in no way exceptional nor thought provoking.  Point is, there is nothing that is SERIOUSLY intriguing about this golf course as to make it really exceptional.  However, the one thing that I do give Fazio, is the undulations in the fairways.  There is usually 1 side that offers a fairly level lie, while the rest of the fairway leaves an awkward stance.  But the undulations don't look all that natural and sometimes seem manufactured.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()