News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tim Weiman

Can We Discuss Routing?
« on: November 27, 2002, 08:18:00 AM »
Of all the golf architecture topics, the one we seem least able to meaningfully discuss at GCA is routing. That's a shame because I think we would all agree that it is one of the very most important features of a design.

Can we improve discuss on this topic? Can people take a course and discuss what they like or dislike about the routing?

I'm not very good at this but will start with Stonewall 2 which I recently visited with Tom Doak and Don Placek:

What stands out for me about the routing at Stonewall 2 is what I call the mood change thing. The course presents three different areas:

1) behind the club where the first 7-8 holes sit on big, bold hills

2) right around the clubhouse, an intimate setting with 9, 10 and 18

3) across the street where 11-17 sit in an open field where you can see action on many of the holes

I'm especially fond of the way the "intimate area" is presented three times: upon arriving at the course, in the middle of the round and for the walk up #18.

Then, too, Stonewall 2's routing presents more depth perception challenges than any course I recall seeing. Funny thing was that Tom and Don, perhaps by spending so much time there, didn't appreciate that point as much as it struck me as a first time visitor.

I seem to recall a couple instances where a first time visitor might be confused which hole he was playing. This has to do with #16 green sitting where you might think it was the green for #12. The topography does that to you, I think.

Finally, I would say Sonewall 2's routing features frequent direction changes, a point sure to increase the challenge of reading wind direction/velocity and makeing the appropriate adjustments while playing the course.

That's the best I can do. I hope others will take a course, famous or otherwise, and describe what stands out about the routing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2002, 08:26:47 AM »
It sure does seem that routings have taken a back seat to waterfalls, eye candy, carts/cart paths and bias. But that can't be helped due to human nature, I suppose.

What I find interesting is since there has been so much crap built without regard to routing that when you finally do golf somewhere where it's seemless and or perfect, one tends to appreciate it all the more.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2002, 08:33:06 AM »
Tim,

I'm a little surprised you think this topic isn't much discussed on here. Seems like it has been raised within topics quite often (good routing/bad routing/questionable routing etc). Maybe not enough of the WHYs/WHY NOTs, so hopefully this thread will draw that out.

Muirfield is one of my favourite courses in part because of its routing. Clockwise around the outside of the property on the front nine, counterclockwise around the inside of the property on the back nine. Each hole changes direction on the compass, and as a result plays a little differently due to the ever present wind, creating challenge and variety. Portmarnock is not exactly like Muirfield but the holes also turn there and present similar challenge and variety.

In contrast, out and back courses are not high on my list because they present a constant (ie lack of variety). As a result, they'd better have more going for them. Compare The Old Course with Royal Dublin.

All The Best,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2002, 08:52:13 AM »
Tim Weiman,

Of all the facets of golf course architecture, the creating of the routing interests me the most.

How these fellows visualize routings on properties is fascinating, perhaps it is the ultimate talent they possess.

I would love to hear from some of the architects who visit this site, how they go about determining a routing on a given piece of property, understanding that each property is unique in its challenge.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2002, 10:49:08 AM »
While reading through The Architects of Golf (Cornish and Whitten 1993) they mention that Old Tom Morris was one of the first to introduce the two loops of nine at Royal County Down which opened in 1891.  Apparently the nines ran in two different directions, the front nine counterclockwise, the back clockwise.  And only once did three sucessive holes play in the same direction.

I met up with David Kidd of Bandon Dunes this year and one of the conversations we had was about routings.  He spent some years learning his trade with a Swedish architect called Peter Nordwell.  David said of all the things he learnt from Peter was how important a routing was.  He said Peter would spend hours and hours walking a site.  Come back in think about it and then go out again.  He would repeat this over days if he had to until he was happy.

If anyone plays one of Nordwall's courses this is one thing you do notice is that the course flows together without you noticing any real changes.

Now a question for some of out there:

If you had a site with three distinct areas would want to divide the course into three distinct playing areas or would you try to incorporate the three styles many times into the golf course?

Brian.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2002, 11:48:46 AM »
Tim, I think back to Jeremy Glenn's writing found in the "My Opinon" section here on GCA describing how Stanley Thompson routed Banff Springs and Jeremy's further comments on routing and believe that was one of the best pieces ever written here on GCA.  

In my mind there are different kinds of great routings.  In order to be great, they all must unfold the aspects of the strategic game in such a manner as to make the progress of the game compelling with rythm and pace.  But aesthetically, some routings seem to be inward looking, where others seem to be giving glory to the long view.  There are intimate little pieces of golf ground that have much natural character within the boundaries of the course and the route takes advantage of the charm of such features and provides a great excursion through the property as the game procedes.  But, there may not be much in the surrounding land to provide the extra dimension of vista or distance.  It is a talent that a good archie must have to focus on the inner beauty of the property and hide the surrounding humdrum.  Another routing is blessed with good golfing ground, and fine long views.   As Jeremy said, it was real genius to both discover the natural charm, strategy and rythm of the Banff property within or upon the golfing ground, and unfold a wonderous journey through lovely surrounding country as well.  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

TEPaul

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2002, 12:33:43 PM »
Aaah the routing!!

The structure, the backbone, the fundamental and the essence of any golf course!

The supreme irony of the routing, or routing, to me, is to almost all golfers I've ever seen it seems so subliminal, so unrecognized for what it actually is, so unknown, so invisible really but only until one thing! Until there's something wrong with it!!

And unfortunately, that can be almost anything--so many possible little things really! Then the routing and the golf course can become a daily annoyance of one degree or another that never seems to go away--ever.

But to me routing surely is the beginning of golf architecture! I think no student of architecture can really understand architecture and the overall essence of the art of it without FIRST experiencing how to put a golf course's routing together!

Bill Coore, I believe, calls initiating a routing "taking a golf walk". I call trying to initiate a routing "the big jigsaw puzzle".

And I've never figured out if it's easier or harder that you sort of have to make your own pieces as you go along and put it together. I think it's probably easier that way but maybe only for a while or to a point, then it can get much harder and into that area that some architects I know call the 'expected obstacles'.

Those architects have said the success or failure of a golf course, at that point, becomes how well you overcome those "obstacles"! This is where those things that are wrong with a routing, I mentioned earlier, become those little daily annoyances that may never go away, if you don't overcome those 'expected obstacles' at this point!

Always, in the back of your mind when doing a routing, even on a wonderful open piece of ground, is, "Where am I?" at any particular point with the necessary balance and variety for golf! And certainly with location as it relates from anywhere to all the other necessities of the eventual golf course like clubhouse or so many other things!

Frankly, I'm pretty amazed that some routings that would seem on paper not to work that well or be very good can somehow take on their own little personalities and somehow overcome those inherent annoyances that I mentioned earlier that seem always to be complicating things as you try to progress with your routing. Maybe in this way there's a certain latitude of some kind that routings can have that I'm not that aware of!

This could be one great thread and I have another ten or so posts in my mind for this thread about one thing or another relating to routing that have occured to me over the last few years.

I sure hope Tom Doak and all the others in the business who visit this site can write some posts on here about all the things they feel about routing. I think we'd all be amazed about the vastly different ways they go about it--where they might start on any site, how they progress, how they overcome those inevitable "obstacles" and sticking points etc.

I think I'll call Gil Hanse to see if he'll post too on a rainy day. I'd call Bill Coore about it too but that's useles since he's told me a number of times he doesn't know how to turn on a computer and he hopes he never learns.

But I think it's the most fun, the most confusing, the most unrecognized and misunderstood by most golfers and by far the most fundamental aspect of golf architecture and understanding it.

The hundreds and hundreds of hours I spent trying to do it on a couple of sites were by far the best times I ever had with architecture.

You want to talk about a great place to get charged up, a great place to get confused and a great place to dream, it's out on a beautiful piece of ground, on a great site, trying to put together a routing!



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2002, 10:36:34 AM »
Tim,

I almost didn't notice this thread since it didn't mention Stonewall by name, and as I've told you before I have a very hard time discussing the work of routing a course in general terms since it's so site-specific.  But I can discuss it for Stonewall II.

Of all the courses we've done, I did more different routings for this one than any other.  The club originally owned just the 62-acre piece where holes 11-17 are today -- which always had to be looked at as a separate piece since it's bordered on two sides by roads, on the third by the third hole of Stonewall I, and on the fourth side by a neighbor who had no interest in selling.  So, over several years we did a lot of different routings to determine what other parcels the club should buy to create a new 18.  

At one time we even studied part of the land where Gil's course is being built, but we thought that tunneling under Route 345 to play some holes would spoil the mood of the course.  Then one day I went out and drove the little farm road, Redding Furnace Road, which splits the golf course, and I fell in love with the farm property and told them I thought it was good enough to justify building course #2.  (None of us wanted to do the project unless the course was of equal quality with the original -- Mr. May told me Merion West would not be good enough!)

Honestly, it was the upper property which sold me on the possibilities for the course.  The 62 acres which Tom Paul has spoken so highly of was a fairly dull, open cornfield which opened right onto Route 345 with no tree buffer.  I never really imagined that part of the course would turn out as good as it did, until we did about the 11th routing for it which is today's.

The land divides itself into three parts:  the "upper" farm to the east of the barn / satellite clubhouse, the original 62 acres, and a narrow strip of property which connects the two.  So the routing was essentially done in three pieces.  The middle piece was a tight squeeze but the intervening streams almost demanded that it become three holes; so the question was how many holes could be fit on the upper property, and how many had to be crammed into the original 62 acres?

We did routings of 6, 7, 8 and 9 holes for the 62 acres -- the nine hole routing actually had some potential but it was very tightly packed.  The final choice was made once we settled on eight holes as ideal for what are now the "front eight."  

The club wanted us to find nine holes on the upper side -- the contractor for the first course did several nine-hole routings to show us it could be done -- but none of them were any good, because there were too many holes jammed N-S-E-W parallel to the property lines.  On my second site visit I realized that the most dramatic views were diagonal -- up to the church steeple in the northeast corner, and from the hilltop out across the barn and the back nine toward long views in the southwest.

Two decisions in the routing were key.  The first was that we were allowed to have a course with a "front eight," which was a lot easier to sell since the first course at Stonewall also returns to the clubhouse at #8.  The second was my decision to take the par-5 third hole up over the tallest hill on the property in homage to the fourth at Royal Melbourne (West), which made the rest of the routing click.  Without sucking up the blind tee shot, we'd have been stuck building a bunch of shorter holes from all sides into that central hill.

This is really the way routings are done.  You look at one section of a property and come up with alternate solutions for that section -- some could be three holes and others five -- and then you decide which alternative is the best, and try to fit that in with the other sections.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2002, 11:13:56 AM »
Tom Doak:

Thanks for your post. I really hope other architects follow your example and post something similiar as Tom Paul suggests they should. Wouldn't it be nice to hear Bill Coore's thoughts on routing at Friar's Head?

FYI, Tommy Naccarato and I were discussing the routing of Cypress Point wondering if any documentation exists on Raynor plans for the property. I'd also love to know if Mackenzie ever considered a routing plan that incorporated land over towards the good stuff at Spyglass.

P.S. At some point, it would be interesting to hear your plans to make the composite course concept work at St. Andrews Beach.




« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2002, 11:17:42 AM »
Tom Doak,

How do you visualize the routing ?

Strictly by walking the property, Studying aerials and topos, or a combination of the above.  What is the key element, the feel for the land, the familiarity of the land or the aerials and topos.

How do you see the individual holes, the rhythm, the continuity of the individual holes within the framework of the general routing ?

Are there any rules of thumb you employ ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2002, 11:26:16 AM »
It sounds like the key to a quality routing is the time spent seeking it out.

Juxtaposed to moving the land and laying down a cad design, ayuh?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2002, 11:39:12 AM »
A Clayman,

Then how would you explain Donald Ross's extraoridary success ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2002, 03:25:06 PM »
Pat M:

I go back and forth between the maps and the field.

I do believe I'm an A+ student at reading topographic maps and at seeing good golf holes on them.  Sometimes I get quite a lot of the golf course routing after studying the maps for a while, without ever having seen the site.  (On the St. Andrews Beach project mentioned on another thread, I found at least twelve of the holes we're going to use before I ever got to Australia to walk the site.)  This was possible because most of the views are contained within the site, so the routing of holes is based almost strictly on topography instead of backgrounds.

On the other hand, at Pacific Dunes there are today only four holes from my original routing.  There were just too many nuances (natural blowouts for bunkers, specimen trees, and backgrounds) which didn't show up on the map.  The sequencing (or rhythm or flow) of the course was also a big issue for Mike Keiser, so we walked each routing from 1 to 18 until we hit upon the final version.  That was actually the first time I'd done that, and the rhythm of the routing is now more important to me than it was before as a result.

(A funny story:  since you don't build courses in order, and since there was a lot of gorse in the way, we were almost finished with the course when I asked Jim Urbina if he had walked it from one to 18 since the day we finalized the routing.  He hadn't, and neither had Mike, so we all went out and walked it again ... and then we really knew what we had.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2002, 09:58:32 PM »
I'm not a architect, yet it puzzles me to see the routings (pronouced "root-ings"; as explained to me from a very wise and humble source. Thanks Harry!:)) of many new courses with little regard to the site, no matter how good or bad it may be.

So where do I get the balls to make such a statment as that? I guess I would have to say that it has to be the study of two architects in paticular--Donald Ross and Dr. A. MacKenzie, who showed the most learned of students that natural features dictate every aspect of the golf hole. What I have learned from these men is that the quirk of land is what makes these features or at least helps decide the use of them.

The Valley Club of Montecito is a lesson in routing.
So is Riviera, Merion, Pacific Dunes, Kapalua-Plantation and so many more.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2002, 11:22:31 PM »
It would have been very helpful had we had this discussion back in October 2001 when I was in the thick part of writing "Routing the Golf Course". It is refreshing to see interest in routing. From the architects (the good ones) it's expected -- but from others it's almost unheard of.

Perhaps the most profound aspects I learned during the course of the writing came from my friend, Dr. Ed Sadalla. Ed speaks of primal human instincts; our relationship to land, water, and views; and how a journey will affect heart rate, performance, etc.  If there is interest perhaps I might post a significant portion of his guest writing that appears in the book. Please let me know.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

TEPaul

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2002, 05:15:03 AM »
This is a wonderful thread! Really instructive on such a fundamental element and step in design.

Tom Doak:

Thanks so much for that really informative couple of posts on Stonewall2.

Pat Mucci:

You asked a bunch of really fundamental and excellent questions there and I hope any architect who responds on here would answer them all!!

I would also suggest to anyone that they really concentrate on Tom Doak's last sentence in the paragraph beginning, "I really do believe...." from his 11/28/6:25pm post!

That to me is so important in the overall look and feel of some routings and holes and golf courses particularly ones that are not treed or heavily treed and particularly when the backgrounds are not visually blocked--(off the property). This could be where many architects miss or have missed an important element of design if topo routing or computer routing is what they do most in constructing routings and courses.

This I think is where elements of scale (with everything that can be seen) can sometimes miss or be used improperly or not used to the maximum. And I think this is where the overall "lines" of how the golf course's natural "lines" and the "lines" the architect makes can be made to work well together but very much with those "lines" he can't touch (off the property and as far as the eye can see)!!

On open sites this is such a necessary overall element and will be the thing that every golfer who ever plays the course will probably pick up at least subliminally! And this is the very first thing I ever learned from an architect when first trying to identify a routing or to understand what the hell was going on when I asked him what he was looking for.

He said he was trying to pick up little 'twists and turns' on the ground even ten feet in front of us and how they flowed with the "lines" maybe 50-100yds on and how those flowed against the back profile of what might be a green site or a fairway or whatever and how those "lines" flowed against something the eye could see way off and the maybe the "lines" of the top of a treeline even farther out and how that 'line" flowed against the sky!

Basically how everything near, medium and far flowed and twisted and turned against each other. Then he said I'll look for that from every angle on this property. Then he said when any of this needs to be enhanced for golf I'll need to match and meld all those "lines" somehow! Basically "flow" them all into what we would be looking at before construction began from every vantage!

To imagine this to the maximum just imagine standing on the crest of the hill short of the fairway on #9 Royal County Down and looking at the twists and turns near distance, then medium, then farther behind the hole and the course and then all flowing against the Mountains of Mourne as they twist and turn against the sky!!

I hardly think any architect could have ever missed that drama and visual impact at RCD in a routing sense but on a smaller level I think you can see what I mean about the importance of doing more than just topo routing. And this is all part of the point and distinction Tom Doak is making in that last sentence, in my opinion. To me it's hugely important--and certainly means being on site to see it all!

On deciding on routings and the particular placement and design "lines" of holes it has to be extremely important!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:11 PM by -1 »

Rich Goodale (Guest)

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2002, 05:29:38 AM »
Forrest

I, for one, would be very interested in reading exceprts of Dr. Sadalla's "guest" writing as it appears in your book.  It might even induce me to buy your book :), as I think that the issue of routing is both essential to great and enjoyable golf and also still far too steeped in mystique rather than reason.  Also, even the good and great ones have got and continue to get it wrong.......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2002, 05:38:30 AM »
Forrest;

All ears and eyes here.  Let's have it when you get a chance...I assure you that this bunch is pretty "primal".  ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2002, 05:43:07 AM »
I think it's also extremely interesting what Tom Doak said about believing he's an A+ student at reading topos!

In my opinion, you can't believe how important that is. Gil Hanse says he's very good at it too! Maybe that's something that just comes with experience but somehow I don't think so.

I've worked for literally hundreds of hours on a couple of routings almost all of it on the land but always a topo with me and I think I'm just one of those people who will never be able to get a feel for visualizing what it really looks like on site off  just a topo!

I can look and look at those contour lines, and I have to put in all my own elevation numbers on every line every inch or so, so I don't have to go scanning that particular contour line to see what its elevation is! (Thankfully, I noticed even William Flynn did this too so I don't feel so bad)! But even doing that I can stare at the topo forever, it seems, and then when I get out there I say--"Jeeesus, this is what it looks like?"

But again the backgrounds often aren't on the topo and that has to be known and seen and analyzed extremely well too to get things as good as they can be (at least visually and scale-wise).

I am going to call Gil Hanse to see if he'll contribute to this thread too.

As for Coore contributing--forget it--he doesn't like computers--or the Internet. But he's the one I was talking about so I have a good idea, to an extent, how he goes about it. But I was walking around with him at Hidden Creek before anything much was done through a thickly treed site---with no topo!!

After a while I said--what in the world are you looking at in this treed jungle? And he said; "See that little bump right in front of us..........." You'll have to imagine the extrapolation from there and the rest!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2002, 05:59:16 AM »
Tom Doak,
How important is sequencing to you when doing a routing?
Are rythm and shot variety of equal importance?  
 
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:11 PM by -1 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2002, 06:17:32 AM »
Hate to throw too many routing questions at you architects but here's one that would be fascinating to know although I can understand why you might not want to answer it.

I'd preface too by saying sometimes it amazes me how many different routings an architect may do on a particular property and how quickly he may do them all.

But my question is, can you give us any examples, specific or general of a course that when all was said and done you looked back at it and said to yourself, I should have gone with another of those routings or I shouldn't have done this or that?

It would also be interesting to know how you think some of the best and most famous courses could have been done differently routing-wise somehow!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2002, 07:53:41 AM »
Tommy N:

Honestly, I don't think it helps to name a few courses and say they are a "lesson in routing". That presumes readers are familiar with the courses you mentioned.

If you think Riviera, Merion, Pacific Dunes or the Valley Club are excellent routings why don't you tell us why? What stands out in each case?

P.S. It might be best to select Riviera for something in depth as I suspect that course (through television exposure) is the one most people are familiar with.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2002, 08:17:52 AM »
To the question of multiple routings:

We do many, probably an average of 15-20, but it depends on the site. Certainly I don't present that many as only a few are worthy. Many times I recall just showing the first choice and only discussing the others. (Desmond Muirhead once told me: "Most people cannot think of 18-holes at one time...this is what makes routing such a difficult art to grasp." After considering Muirhead's wisdom I now explain routings one hole at a time, and in careful order. I am also more sensitive the degree of overload that multiple routings might inflict on a room full of people, so never is more than one usually unrolled on the table.)

I have completed two courses on dead-flat land. One was a core layout that tilted just 3-feet in 1.5 miles! Not only was the land flat in that dimension, but it was also "flat" in other interest and shape. Nothing you could sit under or beside really guided the routing -- it was an open book with few suggestions on what to choreograph. We embraced the light, distant views, and wind -- and everything else we created, literally from scratch. We could have done thousands of routings as land was also of no constraining limit. But I recall doing three primary sketches of which one surfaced as best. In many ways it was a dream assignment, although it never seemed so! One thing I strove for was some elements of imperfection there -- with such a blank canvas it was possible to be "too perfect" in terms of order, balance and pace. The course would have seemed more contrived than golf should be. I probably could have done better in that department, perhaps even with another routing.

I usually use templates and this allows a lot of "plans" to be created even though several might never get recorded. The templates are plastic and articulated and a variety of lengths. They merely represent place-holders for holes and ideas for holes. Many times a topo map may look like I've simply dumped the templates out at random; at least that's what my daughter has said. My typical mode of operation is to shoot digital photos of these as the puzzles are put together so I can go back if necessary. Usually, though, one solution is arrived at which cannot be ignored. This gem will usually get traced at full scale and the digital photos are soon forgotten.

Once the tracing is done it is studied in more detail and a routing develops. More site visits are made and the entire process may repeat itself after another nusiance is discovered.

Of course there are the routings in my head. We are finishing the plans for a course in Mexico and Holes 12, 13 and 14 back-track along each other. This has bothered me from the beginning -- not so much the back-tracking, but just the way the holes feel and are separated when put together -- and lately this has consumed some of my dreams. I suppose you might say that I "have holes in my head", which I do. (Note: "Holes In My Head" is a book title I've been working on and expect release in early 2016. Price will probably be $1100.00 by then.)

So, how many routings does one go through? Difficult to say until you define what a routing is. One part of a course? The whole course? Loose sketches? A tiny image on a digital camera of an assortment of colored plastic templates laid out on a map that very likely has no future, but is still part of the process? A repeating dream, and the corresponding resolutions, of what possible route holes could take for the back nine?

These are all routings.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2002, 08:35:57 AM »
Dr. Ed Sadalla, an environmental psychologist, was kind enough to contribute to "Routing the Golf Course". Here are a few exceprts as requested:

- - -

What does it mean to say that routing the course has psychological implications? It does not mean that psychological factors can uniquely specify or determine how a golf course should be routed. It does, however, suggest that when routing the course, you are simultaneously designing a set of experiences for the golfer. Among other things, you can influence the golfer’s emotions, aesthetic responses, the tempo or pace of the round, and the degree to which the golfer is required to think or solve problems while playing. These factors will, in turn, influence the golfer’s ability to swing the club and strike the ball.

...t tests temperament and character and offers unlimited opportunities for elation, embarrassment, and failure. A round of golf has the capacity to produce the following feelings in a golfer: appreciation of nature, anger, anxiety, confusion, control, elation, embarrassment, experience of beauty,
fear, frustration, power, precision, relaxation, and satisfaction. Clearly, some of these emotions are positive and desirable, while others the golfer strives to avoid.

The choices made among routing alternatives will influence which emotions are experienced as well as the frequency and intensity of those experiences. The golfer’s emotional responses will, in turn, influence his or her physical ability. One of the fascinating aspects of the game is that strong emotions, especially negative emotions, can overwhelm the golfer’s ability to play effectively.

- - -

Humans evolved on the savannas of Africa, and modern humans have inherited an apparently universal attraction to savannalike environments (expanses of grass dotted with trees). For 95 percent of human history, food was acquired by hunting and gathering. Daily life consisted of hunting for food, and success ensured both survival and status within the group. When not searching for food, hunter-gatherers spent time refining their tools and practicing the skills that underlie successful subsistence. The games of ancestral humans, like the games of contemporary hunter-gatherers, probably involved demonstrations of skills that were central to hunting. These skills remain the most common elements in modern sports.

Golf is a stick-and-ball game. The objective is to strike a ball so that it travels from point A to point B. The game is one of a set of games in which a person demonstrates skill at accurately delivering a ball to either a stationary or a moving target. Most commonly, games require the player to aim the ball with the hand or foot. Golf requires the use of a variety of tools. All projectile-target games make use of the ability of humans to accurately throw a missile. Evolution designed humans to be able to throw various types of objects. Throwing is a uniquely human skill — other primates cannot throw with any accuracy whatsoever — and is central to our ability to hunt and kill prey. As evolution favored humans with the perceptual and cognitive skills that enable successful hunting, it also produced the ability to play golf. In a sense, a round of golf may be regarded as the metaphorical equivalent of the hunt.

Both hunting and golf involve heightened awareness of terrain and the ability to imagine the outcome of a series of actions. Both fully engage the imagination and the senses. Both require a kind of relaxed concentration for optimal performance. Note how well the words of Rick Bass, a modern hunter, apply also to the experience of golf:

"One sets out after one’s quarry with senses fully engaged, wildly alert: entranced, nearly hypnotized...Each year during such pursuits, I am struck more and more by the conceit that people in a hunter-gatherer culture might have richer imaginations than those who dwell more fully in an agricultural or even post-agricultural environment. What else is the hunt but a stirring of the imagination, with the quarry, or goal, or treasure lying just around the corner or over the next rise?"

The origins of the game provide clues about how to route a golf course. Because hunting was a universal activity of ancestral humans and because humans have always competed at the skills involved in hunting, the modern golfer has inherited a set of universal perceptual, cognitive, and emotional reactions. By regarding a round of golf as a type of hunting game, it is possible to understand a golfer’s aesthetic reactions, emotions, experience of space, perception of hazards, and performance on the course.

- - -

Consider the two path systems (Figure 10-6) that were employed in a study of spatial memory. After walking each path, participants were asked to estimate its length. Although both paths were identical in length, participants estimated path B as 25 percent longer than path A. Path effects occur when no obvious landmarks are visible throughout the course. Humans commonly maintain their sense of direction and distance in relation to external landmarks. When trees or other visual obstacles surround and enclose a path, a corridor effect is created. In such instances, internal landmarks such as water, bunkers, and other hazards influence the ability to judge distance. Generally, adding landmarks along a path promotes perceptual accuracy. Landmarks serve as intermediate reference points, allowing a golfer to better judge the distance and elevation of a target. Homogeneous expanses of fairway make distance and elevation estimation more difficult.

- - -

(Above excerpted from "Routing the Golf Course"/©2002 John Wiley & Sons/ISBN 0471434809)



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2002, 08:49:13 AM »
Forrest Richardson,

Don't post any excerpts.

Let posters and lurkers go out and buy your book.

I'm ordering my copy today.

Jim Kennedy,

I would think that shot values are at the tail end of the process, when specific hole/features/designs are being layed out, unless there is something very unique about a particular portion of the site.

Forrest touched on another matter, "Flat Land", where topos are next to worthless.

Should flat courses where the architects have provided great routings get more or less credit than non-flat sites ?

Should the architect who provided a great routing on a flat site get more or less praise for that work ?

Doesn't an architect have to be more creative on a flat site ?

Isn't an architect like a diamond cutter ?  
With their genius being the ability to see the shape of the finished stone and the final golf course routing in the raw ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »