Can We Discuss Routing?

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I've only done one routing plan on paper. It's my vision of what might be done in the Best Sand quarry if Sand Ridge ever decides to build a second course there, something which is probably 5-10 years away depending on the economy.

Given that the site essentially presents a "blank piece of paper", I set one rule for myself: create something truly different, a concept which maintains the standard 18 holes, but a routing unlike anything done before.

You won't see it here. It's locked away in a deep underground vault.

But, seriously, I've always been less interested in blank pieces of paper than a real live actual site with both appealing features and obvious limitations.

I might also mention, if you are not already aware, that Robert Muir Graves and Geoffrey Cornish included a routing exercise in their book "Golf Course Design". Actually, it asks the reader to imagine a different routing on the La Purisma property in California. I understand they also had such an exercise in the course they ran for years at Harvard.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Why would you want to build a golf course on a perfectly flat featureless site? Isn't the goal of a routing: maximizing the best features of the given site?

[Tim Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

As I've said, the blank piece of paper exercise - a flat featureless property - has very little appeal. I'd far prefer to take a rolling property like Canterbury was built on and see the different routing plans one might produce.

[Forrest Richardson]

The appeal of the flat land exercise is to focus, I believe, on routing independent of existing land features. Although this is not preferred, it is often reality -- making due with virtually nothing. Sound like bad golf? Perhaps, but it opens the mind. What else can one find besides existing land movement? How do holes fit with one another? What par order might be "ideal" -- or less than ideal? What direction makes the most sense to the senses? Is it best to go out and then immediately backwards? Or to keep going? Or to change direction? Or to zig-zag? Or to build massive lake and play around it? Is your blank paper going to be divided into areas of different character, or all one? Etc.

[TEPaul]

redanman & Tom MacW:

I completely agree with you that routing on a piece of paper is nothing remotely as interesting, complex, educational or indicative of anything as routing a piece of actual ground, as the paper certainly is totally sans any topography and other inherent interes!

But I guess routing on plain paper is a start in the exercise of routing, to a small degree! If I was to route just on a plain piece of paper I think I would definitely get into some serious twisting and turning of holes or really "featuring them up", so to speak, JUST to make up for the total blandness of it. The analogy would be Flynn at Shinnecock and the complexity of the bunkering schemes on the flat parts of the property just to enhance or make up for what was never there of interest!

Routing on a topo map (contour lines) can also be very interesting but unfortunately something that cannot be well visualized or remotely understood as to what the course would actually look like on the ground, except to a very very small percentage of people (those who can truly read topo maps in specific detail--and I'm not one of them!

When you took that paper routing out to the site (even if it was to the same overall dimension--scaled) and once there if the site had any topographical interest or other interest whatsoever you would clearly have to throw away that paper routing and start all over again! That's about how different a piece of paper routing would be from doing the real thing on the ground (other than a dead flat nothing piece of property)!

Frankly, though, building an interesting golf course on a dead flat nothing piece of property has to be the hardest thing of all--in both routing and featuring up the holes! It would be a "clear clay" exercise in creation for sure, unlimited latitude with no obstacles other than the inherent nothingness, but I'd sure like to be given something of interest to start to work with even in a routing context!

And a piece of paper with nothing on it ain't got an iota of inherent interest!

[redanman]

redanman
But I guess routing on plain paper is a start in the exercise of routing, to a small degree!

Tom

I thought a bit about what I wrote earlier and getting to a computer for the first time since then, I must say that the blank piece of paper is the best place to start.

We can in this way be concerned solely with the flow, the change of direction and the pacing of the course.  There is absolutely nothing to restrict you and conversely nothing to start from nor guide you.

I'll be working on it soon, I have to say.

[Tommy Naccarato]

When I get into my doodling moods, I take a full size sheet of paper, crumble it up, and then open it back up. I then try to visualize a certain scale of what the wrinkles portray, then  indentify what could best be described as creeks or burns; blow-outs and hazards. I then try to route the best possible scenario from that.

It is a lot of fun and I dare any of you to give it a try!

[Tommy Naccarato]

I forgot to add, I did this once in a pub for my cousin, after a golf round, and he told me that I'm taking this golf architecture-thing way too seriously!

Forrest, Glad to see you posting here. We certainly need a lot more classey guys like you to make up for the Meagher's, Brauer's and Doak's!:)

[TEPaul]

Maybe it's not such a drawback or limitation trying to do a routing on a blank piece of paper. However, to do a routing justice on a blank piece of paper the whole thing would have to be totally "featured up" in everyway to be interesting to look at and consider.

But just take a look at something like the Lido on a piece of paper (all featured up with melded fairways, great angles, all kinds of bunkering and other features sprinked around, great green angles etc). Very neat to look at on paper sans topography.

However, after looking carefully at the Lido on paper and then reading C.B. description of a hole like the 'Channel hole' and some of the elements of the topography of it, you realize that paper routing really has some huge limitations. Two vs three dimensions is just limiting.

[Forrest Richardson]

You are pulling me away from a terribly complicated grading plan. Thank you.

There are more dimensions that three. My point previously. The exercise of a blank (and flat) paper plan is to think of these other dimensions and either create the rise and fall, or -- for just a few hours -- consider the dimension of the mind, the wind, the relationship of holes to holes, and the playful juxtaposition of hazards, pace, length and orientation. Indeed, you might even think of whether 18 holes is best, or perhaps an extra couple.

I submit a blank piece of paper would open some eyes to some of the subtle conditions in routing we often miss.

[TEPaul]

Well, I suppose it one wanted to go so far on a piece of paper as to "feature it up" with sort of flow lines and basic topographic arrow lines and such even a piece of paper could sort of begin to come to life a bit!

If this can be done I might even get the Ardrossan topo plan reduced and see if I can get someone to scan it in here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood, TEPaul, Tommy Naccarato,

Florida and many desert locations are flat featureless locations, yet the demand to route a golf course is constant, as course after course is being built.

Certainly, it would be more interesting to route a course with features, elevation changes, but for an exercise, the flat land becomes an equal starting point for everyone.

Which leads me to the following.
Many object to the moving of substantive amounts of dirt.
But, if as you say, a flat site is uninteresting, then wouldn't the more dirt you move generally result in a more interesting golf course ?

Are you then supporting the work of Trump and Fazio and Wynn at Shadow Creek and Trump National (FL) ?

[ian]

One thing not brought up is anticipation. With Pacific Dunes, Pebble Beach, Bandon Dunes, and (most of all) Cypress Point; you can't wait to see the ocean holes. David Kidd (when we played together at bandon) talked about the first image of the ocean being the most important to him. He said that he wanted the players to hear it first and know of its imminant arrival, and then see it as the hole turns forming a climax (or rush of adrenaline). Tom and David take you to the ocean, then away, and then back to the ocean. The flow is somewhat like the rythem of the heart (except with an uphill climb). Cypress is a slow steady build towards an incredible climax, like a great book, with 18 being the final chapter that ties the losse ends. Both work, and both work with the element of anticipation to create an incredible emotional run through the golf course.

 Rythem may indeed be the most underatted element in a routing.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It's just amazing the lengths to which you will go with your convoluted logic to prepare an attempt to once again spring upon Golfclubatlas another of your accusations of "bias" or "predisposed bias" regarding Fazio or another of your defendees.

And don't say I'm misreading you! I know you!

[Forrest Richardson]

Who is this Fazio you speak of? Is he in golf?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I asked a very good question in the context of some previous posts.  I mentioned nothing about bias, you did.
The question is a good one.  To create interest on a flat site, dirt must be moved,  The more dirt moved the higher the chance for the development of a more interesting site.
It's a conclusion the prior posts evolve to naturally.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
I think if you actually read the quote from Price that I have included in my previous post you will hopefully understand what I am talking about.

St. Andrews has about as much elevation change as any parcel in Florida; So does Talking Stick in Scottsdale.

They are both examples of GREAT routings that utilze Micro-movement.

***Micro-movement means the little undulations that exist from erosion, decay, wind, rain, drainage, receeding waters, etc. It is with this that you build off of that movement, and like Jeff Brauer has said here, REFINE it!

Pat,
Your homework tonight is to RE-READ the Robert Price Feature interview and be ready for a pop quiz in the morning!

[Tim Weiman]

Pat mucci:

You ask a fair question: whether moving more dirt increases the chance of producing an interest course?

Maybe. It probably takes far more skill to minimize moving dirt and still produce an interesting course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Oh the price of an injured thumb on one's throwing hand !

I was addressing the feature rather than the routing issue in the context of interesting topography.

Tim Weiman,

But, the flatter the site the more boring the course according to some others, and generally, I would agree with that.

If a minimal amount of dirt was moved, would that make the flat course minimally interesting ?

Or, as more dirt is moved, does it become more interesting, until it reaches the point of diminishing returns.
(Don't ask me where that point is.)  And that may be the critical question.

But, Trump's site in Florida was Flat as a board.
A lot of dirt was moved, and the course is interesting.
I wouldn't want to play it every day, but that's just my taste, others may want to.  I don't know that you can fault an architect based on some arbitrary, non site specific formula for cubic yards moved, or left intact.  Especially on FLAT sites

Isn't each finished product the final determinate ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
What a horrible way to end a great year. To hell with a bowl!

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I'm not sure there is a linear realtionship between amount of earth moved and how interesting a course is. I'm more confident it takes more skill to move less dirt and still produce something interesting.

[TEPaul]

Tim;

I can't help but agree with you about not necessarily moving large amounts of earth to create good holes, even very low profile ones.

From a design standpoint in that context, I'd point as examples to holes like #4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17 at Shinnecock. What Flynn did on them in a low-profile (minimal earthmoving sense) is darn good! Basically opened the existing turf to large amounts of waste area, creating a low profile sensation of lots to worry about. He just featured those holes up in interesting low profile ways to make up for lack of natural interest and low lying topography (actually that was written about)!

However, maybe those holes are not that good as examples as clearly Shinnecock and Flynn had some great topography coming on other parts of the course creating some good in and out variety. But on a real flat site that blended into the general area I wouldn't mind a diet of holes that those flatland holes at Shinnecock are all about. You might have to do far more interesting turning and such if you were to use minimal earth moving like that though.

But to me the hardest thing of all would be to build a very low profile course on a flat site and make it have real interest. One benefit t me is it would blend in better with the natural environment but at what overall loss to golf interest?

Building elevation changes onto flat sites maybe OK for golf but if done too much they stickout in such an unnatural way in their environment in my opinion! I call some of them "microcosm worlds" as they seem so out of place topographically in their overall settings.

A couse like Long Island National is a good example of this problem. From about a mile away it looks so unnatural but maybe once you get on it it's OK.

And interesting give and take though!

Building a flattish low profile course on a flat site with real interest maybe the most difficult thing of all to do in golf architecture!

I think TommyN is really onto something when he says to just take the same time and money to really "undulate" the flat surfaces in a million little myriad ways though. That might just be the answer!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The cost to do that might break the bank, or at least the developer.   That's expensive and time consuming, and getting the drainage right might present problems as well.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tommy -- I really enjoy Talking Stick (North Cse.) but wonder why you consider it a "GREAT" routing. I think it is very good. As to the fact that the course was created with minimal earthmoving, what percentage of the guests there are ever aware of this? Or care? Might the course have been more interesting had more dirt been moved?

Pat -- Yes, it takes considerable skill to move minimal dirt on a relatively flat site and garner interest. But it also takes considerable skill to move massive amounts of dirt -- on any site -- and garner interest. I agreed that the litmus test is in the end result, much like the opening night of a performance. How it was rehersed, how the effects are carried out, and how much time is speat should ideally all be well behind the actors and their collective presentation.

"Dirt is soil misplaced"

[Forrest Richardson]

Gee, this discussion has gone quiet. I assume you gentlemen are busy working on your 10x10 routing assignment...?